Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

ADJOURNMENT

House, at its rising this day, to adjourn till Tuesday next.—[Mr. James Stuart.]

Orders of the Day — WELSH CHURCH (BURIAL GROUNDS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

11.5 a.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
In so doing, I would like to say that this matter has, I am afraid, a very long history. The Act of Parliament which set up the Welsh Commissioners was passed as long ago as 1914, shortly before the outbreak of the last great war, and since then there has been two interruptions by great wars, one or two legal complications, and a great deal of disagreement between the various parties concerned in the solution of the problem, with the result that the disposal of the burial grounds which were involved in the Act of Disestablishment has not yet been settled. I hope I am going to have the honour and distinction of being the first Home Secretary, who has been able successfully to advise Parliament as to the solution of the problem. Indeed, the Bill aims at bringing to a final issue and settlement this difficult and prolonged matter on a basis which I have very fully discussed unofficially with Welsh Members of Parliament, with Welsh local authorities, and with the Representative Body, and I believe that we have reached an amicable settlement which will be acceptable to all the persons and parties concerned.
The Bill vests in the Representative Body of the Church in Wales the burial grounds which are at present vested in the Welsh Commissioners, and those burial grounds which are now vested in local authorities which, by agreement however, they may subsequently if they so wish transfer to the Representative Body if there is also agreement on the part of the Representative Body. To achieve this, the Bill amends the Welsh Church Act of 1914 which required the Welsh Commissioners to transfer to different authorities the different categories

of burial grounds which that Act vested in them.
The degree to which the Act of 1914 has been given effect may be stated in this way. There are a certain number of burial grounds which were private benefactions. These are properties given to the Church since the Act of Uniformity of 1662 and they go, under the Act of 1914, to the Representative Body. They number over 200 and most of them have actually transferred to the Representative Body already. It is often, however, impossible to delimit which part of a burial ground is, in fact, a private benefaction and some of these, therefore, still remain vested in the Welsh Commissioners. Under this Bill they will go to the Representative Body as was required by the Act of 1914, and we shall tidy up these delimited areas and enable the land to be dealt with as a whole. Then there is a further class of burial grounds—the closed burial grounds. These were closed before 31st March, 1920, which was the date of the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales They numbered 170 and, as required by the Act of 1914, they have been transferred on request by the Welsh Commissioners to the Representative Body.
Finally, there are the remaining burial grounds, which constitute the greater number, These, sometimes called the "ancient burial grounds," had under the Act of 1914 to be transferred to the local burial authority or, if there was no local burial authority, then to the borough or urban district council or to the parish council. In effect, the transferability was in most cases to the parish council. Some 150 ancient burial grounds have been so transferred since the legislation has been in operation, but there are about 700 of them which are still vested in the Welsh Commissioners. They are only so vested for the reason that only some 15 per cent. of the smaller local authorities agreed to accept the transfer. Under the Welsh Church Act of 1919, no body of persons was bound to accept the transfer of property from the Welsh Commissioners until they were so required by the Secretary of State but it was the case that successive Home Secretaries—and I think they were right—with over 80 per cent. of the parish councils refusing to accept the transfer of burial grounds, did not feel they could exercise this power of direction. I think, in those circumstances,


that they could not very well do other than stand aloof.

Dr. Russell Thomas: Is it not a fact that these burial grounds which could not be transferred, although vested in the Commissioners, are still actually under the control of the incumbents?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot be sure, but I think probably my hon. Friend is right. The present Bill transfers to the Representative - Body those ancient burial grounds which have, so far, not been accepted by the parish councils or any other local authority. The House may ask why the parish councils and other authorities were unwilling to receive these burial grounds. Quite frankly, it was not here a matter of religious controversy; it was a matter of hard cash and of material considerations, and I can understand the difficulty in which these small parish councils, with very negligible rateable value, found themselves. In the first place, many of the burial grounds were full, and thus they would have been obliged to take them over—they ought at any rate to have put them in order and to have maintained them—but at the same time they would have received no revenue for burials because no further burials could take place. Consequently the parish council was faced with taking over a liability with no revenue attaching to it and with a rateable value which was negligible; so they came to the conclusion that financially they could not stand it, and I should think that that is readily understandable. Then, in other cases, many of the councils thought it out of harmony with parish opinion to divide up a burial ground and transfer the ancient part, round the church itself, to the local authority. Here we get the beginnings of an affection and a sentimental regard for the church and its grounds as a whole superimposing itself on potential religious controversy. If I may say so, I think it is all to the good that even people who were not of the religious faith of the Disestablished Church, should, nevertheless, have developed an affection and a desire that the thing should be dealt with as a whole and that the amenities of the place should be maintained.
There is one case of a parish with a population of 135—what a penny rate produced there I do not know; it might

have produced 2d, but it must have been very small—who told the Home Office that their refusal—I think this is rather nice—was
more than anything else an expression of a sentiment which, though a sentiment, is the strongest force in the parish, making for unanimity of opinion and unity of action.
I think that this is interesting because many people have the impression that the Welsh are a schismatic, quarrelsome lot of people, but it is quite clear from the history of this matter, as it has developed, that the sentiment of the corporate well-being of the parish has superimposed itself on the elements of controversy which might otherwise have existed. The resolution of this parish council refusing to take a burial ground, for the reasons indicated, had actually been moved by a leading Nonconformist of the parish and it represented, so we were told,
a revulsion of feeling against dissociating their historic churchyard from their historic church,
and that feeling was quite irrespective of religious denomination, where, quite likely, the majority of the parish was of a denomination other than that of the church. This simple and sincere reply of a small Welsh parish council, which was, I think, typical of some 85 per cent. of Welsh parishes, reveals some of the history and background of the subject of the present Bill and the presence, in these villages, of the different types of religion—episcopal and non-conformist—in a land where religion pervades and inspires life as strongly as anywhere. The Welsh poet, Ceiriog, has in "Alun Mabon" a couplet which, in English, runs:
Psalms and hymns the Cymro hears In the music of the spheres.

Mr. Bowles: What does that mean?

Mr. Morrison: I would not expect my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) to understand what that means, but if he spent a few week-ends doing propaganda in Wales he would begin to pick up the spirit of that great country. There is a common interest and love for the old village church and its graveyard where lie famous Welshmen of both creeds—bards, warriors, scholars, and preachers. These churches and burial grounds are to be found in picturesque and romantic settings—on hilltops, in valleys and in the woodlands of rural Wales. This was expressed even in the prosaic


surveys of the late Land Valuation Department. In the course of a report they said:
The church and graveyard occupy a small patch of land on a seagirt rock on the west coast of Anglesey, protected only by a retaining wall from the surrounding ocean.
Even in the official language of that Department we get a picture of the beauty of the setting of one of these churches, and its burial ground, in Anglesey. No less has the austerity and four-square simplicity of the Nonconformist chapels, old and new, caught the artist's imagination—in particular that of one quite modern English painter, who married a Welsh girl.
I hope the House will forgive me for this digression, but I have a very high regard and affection for Wales and its people, and it does give something of the physical and religious background of the endeavours which have been made, over 25 years, to resolve the problem of transferring burial grounds. Actually, a Bill was introduced by one Government but it had a mixed and stormy reception, from which I can only conclude that, either at that time folks were not as reasonable as they are now, or that the Home Secretary of the day did not make adequate representations before he faced the Parliamentary music—which I hope I have done. It is unnecessary to recall the many conferences, circular letters and consultations with Welsh opinion which have taken place, though with disappointing results, up to the outbreak of the present war. An idea which commended itself, especially to me—and I commend it to my hon. Friends from Wales—was that some of the quite considerable funds arising from Disestablishment might be used to set up a joint body of the interests concerned to restore the burial grounds in harmony with their surroundings. I wanted to set up such a joint body for the whole of Wales, not for the purpose of permanently managing these burial grounds, but for the purpose of doing the initial lay-out and renovation of the burial grounds. They exist in a wide variety of places, and are surrounded by a wide variety of landscapes, and I have no doubt that some are surrounded by no landscape at all because they are in industrial areas. I wanted, if I could get agreement, to have a collective body for Wales to do this job in order that each

burial ground should fit into the landscape or surroundings of the neighbourhood.
I have great respect for municipal engineers, including district -council engineers and the engineers of parish councils, if there are any, but an engineer is not necessarily a good man at laying out burial grounds and gardens. There is a little bit too much of the four-square and the iron railings, and that is all there is to it. I would have liked the University to co-operate in this matter—my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) is himself a poet, but I have not been able to find any of his poetry which bears upon this matter—and a first-class landscape architect employed to see through the initial lay-out. If one goes up the Rhondda Valley, one finds areas which, particularly, in the period of depression were out of tune, in their lay-out and buildings, with all that might have been of the beauty of that valley. As I say, I would have liked agreement about this matter, but there was no adequate response from the local authorities, and the University did not want to put money into it. I do not want much, but I wanted a bit, and, above all, their influence, and if it should yet be possible for the initial lay-out to be done in that way, I would be glad, and I would facilitate it in any way I could.
There have been recent consultations on the urgent need to effect a settlement before the dissolution of the Welsh Commission. I am anxious that that Commission, which has existed since 1914, should wind up their labours at an early date. I hope that that may be possible about the end of this year, but I have hoped that before, and I may be disappointed. I think hon. Members will agree that the Chairman of that Commission, Sir Arthur Griffith Boscawen, who held office for a long time, and who has how retired, has done a good piece of work, and that we should put on record our gratitude to him for what he has done. Discussions were resumed in these circumstances during the last few months with the various interested parties, and I am advised that Welsh public opinion is now favourable to a well-considered scheme of transferring the burial grounds to the Representative Body, which has long desired to receive them. The scheme, as embodied in the Bill, proposes


transfer on two conditions, which are absolutely vital and were insisted upon by hon. Members from Wales whom I consulted, and the local authorities, and which were at once agreed to by the Representative Body. The Archbishop of Wales was also most helpful in that matter. The first condition was that there should be no discrimination in the arrangements for the burial of Nonconformists. They must receive complete equality of treatment, or whatever the right word may be.

Mr. James Griffiths: Opportunity?

Mr. Morrison: I nearly said, "opportunity." It is a word which my hon. Friend and I would use, but it did not seem quite right in this connection. The second condition is that responsibility for maintenance in accordance with local amenities is to be placed firmly on the Representative Body. And the Representative Body have firmly accepted the responsibility for that, including the responsibility for finance, which I think indicates that they have accepted both conditions and that the Representative Body is acting in a broad and good, public spirited way. The county councils have all passed resolutions in favour.
If I may summarise the Clauses of the Bill, the first Clause transfers en bloc all burial grounds which now vest in the Welsh Commissioners so as to vest them in the Representative Body on a day to be appointed by the Secretary of State, subject to the right of persons who were incumbents at the time of the passing of the 1914 Act to have the grounds vested in them during the period of their incumbency. Under Clause 2, dealing with the transferred burial ground, provision is made, where a burial ground has since the Act of 1914 already been received by a local authority, or will be received on the termination of an existing incumbency, for the Representative Body to agree with the local authority concerned for the transfer of the ground to the Representative Body. Sub-section (2) provides that certain provisions of the Welsh Church Act, 1914, as to the administration of the grounds after they had been transferred to the local authorities shall cease when the grounds vest in the Church.
Clause 3 deals with the maintenance of burial grounds, and an obligation under

this Clause is placed on the Representative Body to maintain in decent order the burial grounds which will be transferred to them under the provisions of the Bill, and any existing liability which there may be in other persons to maintain these grounds is consequently extinguished by Sub-section (2). It is provided that the Representative Body shall perform this duty in such manner as to preserve public amenities. Clause 4 deals with the rights of burial, and it is specifically provided that there shall be no discrimination in the matter of burial between members of the Church in Wales and other persons, that is, of course, subject to any trusts, etc., attaching to these grounds—for example, one applying to a family vault and the provision of the Burial Law Amendment Act, 1880, which regulates burials which are other than according to the rites of the Church of England, are not to apply except to secure that the procedure for the registration of burials is unaffected. Rules may be made by the Representative Body, subject to approval by the Home Secretary, on such matters as the giving of notice of burial.
That is the outline of the Bill which, I submit, gives effect in a short, clear and simple manner to the agreement that has been reached between the parties concerned and myself. Welshmen are reported to say that the chief products of Wales are
flannel to clothe, cheese to feed and sermons to take one to Heaven.
This Bill is, perhaps, not unfancifully akin to "a sermon to take one to Heaven," since it is designed to settle the old controversy of those last resting-places where, more than anywhere, perpetual peace should reign. A Welsh Church Bill inevitably recalls the intense and almost inspired interest which my Noble Friend Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor took in these matters. It is some commendation of the present Bill that before his serious illness, which causes the nation and all of us here such anxiety—we all wish him well and a recovery—he expressed general approval of its terms. On the back of the Bill is the name of his son, our colleague, the Minister of Fuel and Power, indicating his support of the Bill. One can hear Lloyd George saying of this Bill, in the words of the old Psalmist, that at long last
My foot standeth in an even place: in the congregations will I bless the Lord.


That is the case for the Bill. It has been a long and troublesome story. I should like to thank very much hon. Members from Wales, who have given me great help and much good advice on this matter. What I have said about the desirability of this job being done with a sense of beauty and full amenity I know commends itself to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Davies), who has been most helpful in many ways in the preparation of the Bill, and I am grateful to him and to all the Welsh Members of Parliament, to the local authorities and to the Representative Body, for their co-operation. I hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading and, when it is on the Statute Book, we may say that, although it sometimes takes time, the British are capable in the end of solving the most difficult problems.

11.31 a.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: May I tender my most sincere congratulations to the Home Secretary on being able to introduce what all Welsh Members hope will be a non-controversial Bill, for to-day all parties in Wales assent—all Nonconformist bodies, whether Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists or Congregationalists, and, of course, the Church of Wales. This, I hope, is the closing chapter in a long and often bitter controversy. The rancour began over churchyards and it closes over churchyards. The Bill provides sufficient safeguards to satisfy every one of us, and we are confident that the Representative Body of the Church will carry out its great trust with tact and understanding, with tolerance and with good will. The old antagonisms, I am glad to say, are dead, or nearly dead, we all hope never to be revived. The abolition of the privilege, which was fortified not by the people but by the State, has led to a better understanding, a better feeling and a sense of Christian brotherhood which, I hope, will be fostered and will continue. I do not look forward to uniformity but I look forward and can see unison where each Christian church and chapel will be fulfilling its part in the great Christian choir for the betterment of Wales, for the happiness of the Welsh people, with true and sincere charity towards all, united together, each following the same path and method for one common purpose, to

combat evil in whatever form it may appear.
I have only one regret. Property was taken away from the Church when it was disendowed. I think it was rightly taken away. It was taken away on the ground that it belonged to the Welsh nation, and not to a Church which then only represented a section of that nation. For the same reason the churchyards were taken away and offered to the local authority. Unfortunately, though their dead had been buried there, they refused to undertake this responsibility. The churchyards are now to be returned to the Church, and the Church is to be "trustee," not merely for churchmen, but for all the Welsh people. The Church is to undertake to maintain them, in the words of the Bill, "in decent order," not only for themselves, but for all, of whatever religious body. This will certainly be costly. The Church itself has not much money, the incumbents are not too well paid, and the costs will indeed be heavy. They have, however, taken on this burden willingly, cheerfully, I might almost say recklessly, as a sacred duty. In the meantime, for over 30 years these churchyards in many places, I might almost say in most places, have been sadly neglected.
Our land is beautiful; our villages are ugly. The chapels of our people, maintained and pastored out of their pennies, are not all beautiful, but the old churches in many instances are lovely. They harmonise with the land; they have been built out of native stone and roofed with native slates. Mellow with age, they recall the calm and peace of the countryside, and the old traditions that we wish so much to cherish. Churchyards are part of the churches. To the Church people themselves, they are consecrated ground, but to all they are consecrated by the fact that our forefathers, from time immemorial, lay buried there: Churchmen and Nonconformists, side by side, under the shadow of the yew trees and in the shelter of the walls of the old parish church. Now, many of these sacred graves are made hideous by neglect; there are broken walls, the headstones lie awry, there are brambles, nettles, thistles and long, rank grass, giving all a derelict appearance.
There is a vast sum of money still in the hands of the Welsh Church Commissioners, waiting to be distributed to the


universities and to the county councils of Wales. The Home Secretary has done his best, and my colleagues and I have tried to persuade them to set aside a part of the sum to be given, as he has said, to a temporary body of trustees, who would utilise the funds in their hands in order to restore these churchyards to decency. We had hoped that they would employ a first-class landscape gardener and a first-class architect, and gradually make these sacred grounds into havens of rest and sanctuaries of peace and comfort, for those of us whose loved ones lie buried there. We all have put this to them, but, unfortunately, they were adamant and they refused. They refused even to give one penny towards bringing those churchyards back into a proper state of decency. I consider their attitude mean, mercenary, shabby and, would almost use the word, contemptible. Beautiful buildings in beautiful surroundings fill a want in the minds and souls of men and women who might otherwise be leading a drab life and I wish the decision of the universities had been otherwise. However, the Church has taken upon itself this great duty and has undertaken to shoulder this national burden itself. As a Nonconformist of Nonconformist parentage, I can only wish those responsible well in their great and sacred duty. To end, as I began, I would congratulate the Home Secretary on his producing this Bill, which, I hope, will bring peace and comfort to Wales.

11.40 a.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: May I express my thanks and the thanks of my colleagues to the Home Secretary for the manner and the spirit in which he has introduced this Bill? I would particularly like to congratulate him upon the care which he exercised in the pronunciation of our very beautiful Welsh names. One complaint that I have had to make since I have been in this House is that while hon. Members have always taken great care to give a correct pronunciation to French names, they do not take the same care in pronouncing the Welsh names. Why it should be so I do not know. The Welsh names may be a little more difficult, but they are much more beautiful. I have heard the name of the constituency I have the honour to represent in this House called by many sorts of sounds. Therefore, I wish to congratulate the Home Secretary upon saying Cieriog

and "Alun Mahon" in the true Welsh fashion and one of these days we will make him a member of the Gorsedd.
This is an echo of a very old and bitter controversy. One of my earliest recollections is being taken by my father to a great demonstration in my native village, at which the case for the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church in Wales was put with great vigour, and received with tremendous enthusiasm and applause—it is difficult to recall it now —by Mr. Lloyd George as he then was. May I say that I, and my colleagues and for that matter everybody in this House, will join in the tributes paid by the Home Secretary to him, and that we all wish him well?
I would like to support the plea that has even now been made by the Home Secretary and by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) to the local authorities in Wales and to the University. The local authorities have had a very difficult time. They have had to carry a tremendous burden during 25 years of depression. Their resources have been taxed, their people heavily burdened and sometimes one can understand when they hesitate to take on any kind of obligation which they need not undertake. They might, perhaps, look upon this as a sum of money which could be used for purposes much better, in their eyes, than the purposes indicated. I have a very great respect for the work that has been done by the authorities in Glamorgan, Carmarthen and Montgomery. I am sure that all will recognise the amazing work they have done during these past 25 years and throughout the period of depression. We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the local authorities in Wales for the way in which they have sustained the people during these terrible years. For that reason I hesitate to say a single word which might upset these local authorities, but I believe that, in this instance, they have shown a lack of imagination. Here, a gesture would, indeed, have been in tune with the spirit of the people and would have redounded to their credit.
The University has less excuse than the local authorities. Indeed, I deplore the fact that one of our Welsh national institutions has, in this matter, shown a spirit which, I am certain, is deplored by the Welsh people themselves. I can only


hope that both the local authorities and the University will reconsider the matter. We all want to see these churchyards, which are a part of our tradition and are sacred grounds hallowed by the memories of centuries, made more beautiful. I would hate to think that the church of Llan Saint-Elli, which gives my town its name, could not be maintained and beautified in memory of the very great Welshmen and Welsh women of the past. Llan I may say is the Welsh name for "sacred ground" or "God's acre." I thank the Home Secretary and hope the House will give the Bill a unanimous Second Reading. I hope that the Representative Body will be able to maintain these churchyards, to improve them and to see that they are made worthy of the nation in which they are located.

11.44 a.m.

Mr. Richards: I should like, with my colleagues, to congratulate the Home Secretary on the consummation of a very difficult task which has been going on for many years and has caused more bitterness and acrimony than any political controversy in which the Welsh nation has ever been engaged. During the last 100 years nothing has so touched the Welsh nation as the struggle for Disestablishment, and to-day we are witnessing the coping stone being put on that structure by the Home Secretary. This is not the first time that the Home Secretary has taken upon himself to do a measure of justice to Wales, and to try and solve a problem for Wales. If he continues in this role, I can see the claim for a Welsh Secretary of State receding very rapidly.
I have said that during the last 100 years no controversy has aroused such bitter feeling as the controversy-concerning Disestablishment. If we go further back, to the Reformation, for example, that was accepted quietly in Wales on the plea, I presume, that the King could do no wrong, and particularly a Welsh King; but my own private opinion is that the Welsh people just went on their way being faithful in many remote places to the old religion. There was, however, no controversy like that which was roused by Disestablishment. It is interesting to inquire why it should have caused all this trouble. The fact of the matter is that Wales at this time was just becoming conscious of its

own national existence. It was recovering something of the history of its past, and when the religious revival at the end of the 18th century came a new life was coursing through the veins of the people. Disestablishment was an expression, in the political field, of this new outlook. The country had, by this time, become predominantly Nonconformist, and it was claiming the same rights in law and the same privileges as had hitherto been reserved for the Anglican Church in Wales.
One is glad to realise that, as the Home Secretary has pointed out, the political climate in Wales, on this matter particularly, has considerably changed during the last. 20 to 25 years, and it is interesting that in the roll of destiny it should have been reserved for a Socialist Home Secretary, one who described himself in my hearing the other night as being more Leftist than almost anybody whom he knew, to complete a task undertaken many years ago. I would remind the House, as the Home Secretary did, that our thoughts as Welshmen naturally revert to the great statesman who, unfortunately, is laid up in his home in distant Criccieth. I am sure we all regret the fact that he is not here to-day to give his blessing to this Bill, which achieves what he had long intended to do. The Bill removes a serious grievance, and it is interesting to remember that it was Earl Lloyd-George who first made this question a live political issue. It is interesting, too, to recall that it was this question that launched him on his career as a politician, a career which eventually landed him in the great position he held during the years 1914–18. The Disestablishment of the Welsh Church has been, I think, to its advantage. It is no longer an alien Church uneasily poised on the shoulders of an unwilling people. It is a Church which has a very long tradition, because there was a Celtic Church, which was very prominent in Wales and the Celtic countries generally, long before the rest of the country had been Christianised. It is because this Welsh Church is now recovering something of the great dignity and the fine traditions which it and the Church of the Middle Ages had, that it is again gaining the adherence of a great many Welsh people.
I congratulate the Home Secretary, particularly on his courage in giving back these churchyards to a representative


body in Wales. We do not want to get into the position in which we were formerly, when an individual could angrily refuse burial to a Nonconformist person. We have sufficient faith, judging by the Clauses of the Bill, that the Representative Body will do what is just in this matter. I admire the spirit in which they have taken over this great responsibility. I regret, with other hon. Members, that in this matter the University and the county councils have not shared the triumph we are witnessing to-day, in getting rid of a bitter controversy that has divided our people for the last 50 or 60 years. I am looking foward to a new era in the history of both the Church and Nonconformity in Wales, and I am sure that this Bill is a step in the right direction. With the great affection the Church has always had for these sacred places, I hope they will have the vision to beautify them, and make them something of which we can really be proud. I wish the Bill a speedy passage to the Statute Book, and I thank the Home Secretary very sincerely.

11.53 a.m.

Dr. Russell Thomas: There has been such admiration for this Bill that I will try to avoid any bitter controversy. The Home Secretary has brought the Bill to the House in a reverent manner. Nevertheless, there are certain things embodied in it which I fear. The Bill puts our ancient churchyards in Wales in the hands of a Representative Body. It sets up a central authority which will make rules and Regulations to govern the set-out and lay-out of burial grounds. Clerks and other officials, perhaps a landscape surveyor, will help in this matter. In other words, we have the danger that the beautiful burial grounds in Wales will, if I may coin a horrid word, be "cemeterised." We shall establish a cemetery authority, and the tendency will be to destroy the beauty of the burial grounds and make them like the cemeteries we so often see, most uncomfortable places, outside our little towns. Parish councils have not accepted the powers which were vested in them, although their chairmen have often been Nonconformists, because, no doubt, they have had such reverence for the local churchyards. The Home Secretary has said that these burial grounds want renovation. They possibly want some tidying up here and there. Under the Bill they are to conform to the

amenities of the locality. The Representative Body might, in the future, take a very curious view of the amenities of the locality. I remember many of those ancient burial grounds in Wales, particularly in the Wye and the Usk Valleys, which were spiritual amenities in themselves. Their unkempt condition helped to make them so.
The Home Secretary has already drawn a picture of some of these ancient places. Perhaps I, too, may be permitted for one moment to present a picture of some of those which I have in mind. I picture the little village church built on a grassy mound, each stone laid by the loving care of many generations of men. I picture the ancient burial ground situated amongst sweet meadows, with a stream not far away, hedges unkempt and choked with sweet briar, gravestones half buried in the ground aslant, the inscriptions indecipherable, grass scythed perhaps twice a year
where heaves the turf in many a mouldering heap.
Surely this was an amenity, a spiritual amenity. We must see to it that this Representative Body, the central planning power, does not change it. Did not the wayfarer stop and reflect upon the transitory nature of his earthly life and was he not reminded that our lives are but a stage in our eternity? Passing through it at night, with fear of the mystery of death in his heart, he may nevertheless experience awe in the unseen presence of the Master of all. Surely that, too, is an amenity for the spirit.
Let us see that we do nothing, that this Representative Body does nothing, to destroy this beauty, and bring these ancient churchyards down to the level of the amenities of the villages of future years, with their chromium-plated lampposts, their curbed asphalted paths, their miserable parks laid out in Germanic precision, their green iron seats where folk sit cheek by jowl and look not even at the flowers but upon the ground where the cheeky sparrow is almost afraid to come.
I would pass to another point in the Bill and I do so with great diffidence. I know that the Representative Body will now allow, perhaps rightly so, people not of the Anglican community to perform the last rites in the churchyard, with one condition only, and that is that they shall not


interfere with services in the church or with the clergy or congregation attending the church. But it is not the incumbent who will be able to fix the times when these ceremonies will be performed, but the Representative Body or their clerks. He may not even be consulted in the matter, and he may find that there is undue interference with the administration of his church.
Who has not passed a country churchyard—arrested in his way—and when perhaps hearing the last offices of the Church has not been moved by the solemnity, mysticism, grandeur and beauty of the committal? Who has not paused then to consider the sordidness of human affairs and the vanity of human wishes? Nonconformists, Roman Catholics and many others will perform their ceremonies in these ancient Welsh churchyards with due reverence, but under this Bill any peculiar sect can utter its miserable and fantastic ritual under the shadow of the village church, when the wayfarer will no longer be arrested and impressed or be impelled to dwell on greater things—we may even hear mystical ceremonies from the Buchmanites.
So then let us be careful what we do in these matters. We pass Church Measures easily enough in this House. We give the bishops more and more power, and bit by bit we are establishing a hierarchy contrary to the whole spirit of the ancient Church. Let us be careful that by Bills such as these we do not, in due course, destroy the great traditions of our country.

12.1 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Miss Wilkinson): Very little has been left to which I have to reply. I can reassure the hon. Member for Southampton (Dr. Russell Thomas) who, I think carried his objection to planning to a rather extreme point when he said he preferred profusion of weeds to order and beauty. Whether the weeds be actual or mental, that confusion is usually found in the minds of the anti-planners. I can assure him that the object of the Bill in this respect is not to destroy beautiful burial grounds, which are in a state of wild beauty, but to deal with burial grounds that are not beautiful now. The hon. Gentleman claims to be a Welshman. It is hardly appropriate

for me to introduce any word of controversy into this peaceful, not to say ceremonial, atmosphere, but I would remind him that the most backward people on earth are those who take the greatest care of their burial grounds.

Dr. Russell Thomas: Will the hon. Lady say which are the most backward people?

Miss Wilkinson: I am referring to people who have made piety in respect of their ancestors a much greater virtue than is apparently the case in some of the Welsh villages. An English Home Secretary is trying to do what he can; he has to plead, for he can do very little more in this Debate, and it is noticeable that the criticism of Welsh local authorities came, not from him but from the Welsh Members. Members have spoken from Central, South and North Wales. I would like to thank those hon. Members for their kind words to my right hon. Friend and to the Home Office, whose officials have worked very hard on this matter. There is no doubt that they have uttered weighty criticism, both of the local authorities and the university for not making a gesture so that these ancient burial grounds might enjoy some small part of the ample funds that are available. But, after all, we do not give up any sinners. Far be it from me as a Nonconformist to do that.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Not even the anti-planners.

Miss Wilkinson: There are some things that even a Nonconformist cannot overlook. Perhaps this Debate may have done good by giving publicity to a matter that has been left dormant for a long time. Negotiations have naturally gone on quietly among the interested bodies, and the public has known very little about them, but the controversy has been taken out of the matter. I have no doubt that the Welsh papers will print, in extenso, the speeches of the Welsh Members, and I hope that will recall to the Welsh people their duty in this matter. No one has ever made an appeal on grounds of sentiment to Wales in vain, and I am sure that as a result of this little Debate, there will be many stirrings of conscience among the various denominations in Wales, which may result in a feeling that something should be done. If there is any such move on the part of the local authorities and the


University, no one will be more anxious than my right hon. Friend to welcome it. But if there is such a feeling abroad, the sooner it finds tangible expression the better. This matter must be got out of the way. The Church in Wales is accepting a very substantial burden, and it would be a very good thing if the local authorities and the University were able to come forward now and say that they were willing that some of this money should be made available.
Of course, the real problem is not only one of money, but one of getting a good job done. Here, I want to say I had sympathy with the hon. Member for Southampton when he said that what is wanted is not something rigid, superimposed from the centre. The very idea behind my right hon. Friend's speech was that there should be a beautiful plan, and that each local plan should fit in with the amenities of the countryside. The trouble about many villages in Wales is that there is not a place where people can sit down, or where old people can meet, without going into the fields, which are not far away, but which are private property. How much better if they could come together in a beautiful garden, where they felt they were surrounded with the spirits of their ancestors. Having made this little plea, I thank the House for the kind reception which they have given to the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—[Mr. Pym.]

Committee upon Tuesday next.

LIMITATION (ENEMIES AND WAR PRISONERS) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Interpretation.)

12.8 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, in page 2, line 45, at end, insert:
subsection (1) of section seven of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937.
This is a small Amendment. It was suggested that we ought to include, in the

list of Acts in Clause 2, which deals with varieties of limitations, sub-section (1) of Section Seven of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937. That Section gives one party or other to the marriage the right to bring proceedings for nullity, on certain grounds, within a year. It is possible that a marriage might take place and that the husband might be made a prisoner shortly afterwards, and would subsequently discover grounds which would entitle him to proceed under this Section.

Mr. Bowles: Could the Attorney-General say why the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, is not included among the Statutes listed in Clause 2? Surely there can be no objection to its inclusion. I wonder whether the Attorney-General would amend his Amendment so as to include it, unless there is good reason why it should not be included. It is important.

The Attorney-General: It is in the Limitation Act, 1939. I do not know whether my hon. Friend was in the House when it was dealt with but that Bill collected an immense number of Statutes of Limitation, and put them together, including what was previously in the Public Authorities Protection Act. It was in that Act that the period was extended from six months to a year.

Mr. Bowles: I see that in Clause 4, applying the Bill to Scotland, there is a reference to
section one of the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893.

The Attorney-General: Scotland has its own law on that matter.

Amendment agreed to.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 3, line at end, insert:
(4) Subsection (2) of section fifteen of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 1939 (which provides that a certificate of a Secretary of State shall, for the purposes of proceedings under or arising out of that Act, be conclusive evidence of certain matters affecting the definition of enemy territory) shall apply for the purposes of any action to which this Act relates.
This is a drafting Amendment. There is a provision in the Trading with the Enemy Act that the certificate of the Secretary of State as to what is enemy territory, should be conclusive evidence. That provision ought to apply in this Measure


as well. In some cases, it is a Board of Trade Order which determines the matter; in some cases a certificate from the Secretary of State.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Provisions as to Northern Ireland.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Attorney-General: I shall ask the Committee to negative this Clause. A new Clause will subsequently be moved, dealing with Northern Ireland. Under the Bill as originally introduced, Clause 5 gave Northern Ireland power to legislate on these lines, if it so decided. But Northern Ireland, which undoubtedly knows a good thing when it sees one, has decided that this is a good Bill, and would like the Bill to apply there. Accordingly, we are omitting the permissive Clause, which is this Clause. The New Clause I have mentioned is an adaptation Clause applying the Bill to Northern Ireland.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Application to Northern Ireland.)

In the application of this Act to Northern Ireland, the expression "statute of limitation" means any enactment (whether of the Irish Parliament or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom or of the Parliament of Northern Ireland) in force in Northern Ireland at the date of the passing of this Act under which a period is prescribed as the period within which any action to which such enactment relates is required to be brought, but does not include any enactment prescribing a period within which any criminal proceedings, or any proceedings to recover any penalty imposed as a punishment for a criminal offence, or any proceedings before a court of summary jurisdiction must be brought.—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered (King's Consent signified); read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

MINISTRY OF FUEL AND POWER [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to the appointment and functions of the Minister of Fuel and Power, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of an annual salary not exceeding five thousand pounds payable to the Minister appointed under the said Act, and of the expenses of that Minister, including such salaries or remuneration payable to any Parliamentary Secretary, and to any other secretaries, officers or servants appointed by the Minister, as the Treasury may determine.

Resolution agreed to.

MINISTRY OF FUEL AND POWER BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. Charles WILLIAMS in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(Appointment and functions of the Minister of Fuel and Power.)

12.15 p.m.

Captain Duncan: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, after "power," insert "except electricity."
For the convenience of the Committee perhaps the last two Amendments, dealing with the First Schedule, could be considered at the same time, for they relate to the same point—on page 5, line 14, leave out sub-paragraph (c) and on page 5, line 20, leave out from "1940," to end of Schedule.
I do not move this Amendment on the basis of prejudice or party politics but on the grounds of administrative efficiency alone. In my previous political life, I have had experience of the Board of Trade and of the Ministry of Transport, and studied administration to the best of my ability when I was in those Ministries. I would put the position as to electricity as briefly as possible. The Board of Trade used to look after electricity from the passing of the Act of 1882 until 1919. On the setting up of the Ministry of Transport there was a very big division of opinion as to the Ministry to which electricity should go. There was a great deal of coming and going and of discussion and argument, and it is interesting to remind ourselves that it was the Government of my right hon. and gallant Friend's father which


was responsible for placing electricity under the Ministry of Transport, and that it was my late leader, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, who opposed it. Let me give one or two short quotations from the very long Debates in the House and in Committee in 1919 when this matter was being settled. I do it to show that it was not a haphazard decision and was taken deliberately. Mr. Shortt, who was then Home Secretary, speaking in the House on 26th February, 1919, on the Ministry of Ways and Communications Bill, which was subsequently withdrawn and replaced by the Ministry of Transport Bill, said:
Transport is the greatest and most permanent customer of electricity."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1919, c. 1803.]
Again, in discussing the Electricity Bill of the same year, he said:
Indeed, there is hardly any form in which one seeks to better the 'conditions of the country that does not require as 1.0 essential transport above all. Equally, transport without power is of no value.
A little later, on 20th November, 1919, he said:
These are the two great essentials for progress in this country—transpots and electricity.
There is one more short quotation from the same speech:
Transport is co-ordinated under the Ministry of Transport, and the only way you can have co-ordination between power and transport is by putting them under the same Department."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1919, c. 1198 and 1202.]
It one reads these discussions of 25 years ago one sees that the whole basis was that power and transport must go together in order to get the best development of transport, of electrified railways, tramways and trolley buses. Therefore, in those days it was an established and deliberate policy and it was not a haphazard decision that was taken.
My next point, speaking as a consumer and a representative of consumers, is that it is not in the public interest that the Minister of Fuel and Power should have coal and electricity under his own hand. A lot has been said about co-ordination, and, no doubt, my right hon. and gallant Friend will talk about it this morning. I submit that it is not in the interests of the consumers—who are the vast majority, if not the whole of the population of this country—that there should be co-ordina-

tion between the production of coal and the consumption of electricity. Let us take the position that will arise if the Clause goes through in its present form. The Minister of Fuel and Power will be qua coal Minister the Minister in charge of the mines. His interest will lie towards keeping up the wage-rates of the miners, increasing their earnings, increasing the profitability of the mines and improving the conditions of the workers. That is a very laudable ambition, but it will be seen that the pressure from that side will be to increase the cost of coal. The pressure on the other side will be from the producers and users of electricity, who will want to have large quantities of coal of the right quality and at reasonable prices. The pressure from the power companies, the Central Electricity Board, the Electricity Commissioners and the users of electricity who, as I have said, are really the whole population, will be to have coal, which, at the moment, is the main basis of the production of electricity, at a cheaper price.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will be faced with these two pressures and I submit that that is an impossible position in which to place a Minister. I repeat that I am arguing this matter from the point of view of administrative efficiency, and the right method, as I believe, is to make the Minister of Fuel the coal Minister and let him devote all his efforts to improving the industry, re-organising it and making it more profitable—whether it is under nationalisation or private enterprise makes no difference. Let us say that the Minister has coal to himself and the Ministry of Transport is left responsible for electricity. There will, no doubt, be inter-Departmental disputes and if they cannot be settled they will go up to the apex of the pyramid of the governmental machine, whether the War Cabinet, the Peace Cabinet or the Prime Minister, and a decision will be taken. If the Minister of Fuel, as the coal Minister, is dissatisfied with that decision he can resign as a protest against not getting his way, but when he has both these pressures exerted from diametrically opposite directions he cannot, in any way, deal with this dilemma.
In the second place, I regard it as important that there should not be coordination between the production of coal and the distribution of electricity. The


Minister is the gas Minister as well as the electricity Minister. These are competing industries, and in my opinion it is to the benefit of the community that they are competing. Consider the case of a local authority which wishes to develop a satellite town or a housing estate where there are, at the moment, neither gas mains nor electricity. Under the terms of this Bill the Minister will have the right to order that the housing estate or the satellite town shall have only gas or only electricity. That will be the position when he is in charge of both gas and electricity. Again, I submit that that is a wrong position in which to put the Minister of Fuel. There should be freedom for the local authority, and if possible for the tenants on the estate, to choose whether they will have gas or electricity, and that choice will be made on the basis of price and convenience, but mainly price. I have been interested in the housing question for many years. Whenever a new block of flats goes up the question is always raised whether to put in gas or electricity or both. In some cases gas is cheaper and in other cases electricity is cheaper or more convenient, but there must be freedom to choose between the two. No local authority, big or Small, ought to be placed in a position of inferiority to the Minister in this connection. For these two reasons I submit that it is not right that there should be this close co-ordination, this over-lordship, of coal, gas and electricity under one Ministry.
Judging by the record of his Ministry up to now the Minister of coal has sufficient to do in re-organising the coal industry. The co-ordination required is between the production of coal and its sale both at home and abroad. We are hoping for a big extension of the export trade in coal. That appears to me to be the job upon which he will concentrate in the next few years and that he will have no time for electricity at all. In any case, there are the Central Electricity Board and the Electricity Commissioners, the one looking after generation and the other after distribution. They could quite easily continue to work, as they have worked for 20 years, under the Ministry of Transport, with ease, comfort and satisfaction to all. I submit that by leaving electricity out of this Bill we shall be acting in the public interest.
The Ministry of Transport is a well-established Ministry which has been going for over 25 years, and industry has faith in it, but the Ministry of Fuel is, at the moment, only a war-time Ministry, and I think it may be fairly said that for the time being industry is watchful of it if not doubtful. When new Ministries are set up they take a long time to establish themselves and gain the faith of those engaged in the industries with which they are concerned. These Amendments may not be acceptable in their present form, but I most earnestly ask my right hon. and gallant Friend to consider the case I have made, because I honestly believe that it would be in the public interest to accept them in principle, and to amend the Bill at a later stage, if he agrees with the view I have put forward.

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I hope the Minister will resist this Amendment, and will not be guided by something that was said somewhere—it is not quite clear where—25 years ago. As I understand the proposal, it is that electricity, presumably in its generation and its distribution, should-be left to the Ministry of Transport. It is not clear what is to happen to the present Ministry of War Transport—whether it is to be subdivided when peace comes, taking shipping out of the scope of the Ministry. If the Ministry of War Transport emerges as a Ministry of general transport after the war, there will be, presumably, a large measure of co-ordination. I suspect that they will have enough to handle without dealing with electricity. But, taking my hon. and gallant Friend's argument, transport uses coal. Then, why not put coal under the Ministry of Transport? I presume that my hon. and gallant Friend never thought of that. He says he did, but it did not emerge very intelligibly in his speech.
I think that is a complete answer, but there are other answers if that is not conclusive. Before I present some of them, I must say that I suspect my hon. and gallant Friend and those who may consort with him in this matter of taking the long view. They are less concerned about administrative difficulties, as alleged, than about the possibility of coal, under some national organisation, being linked up with electricity, thus thwarting the endeavours of private enterprise in that


field—a very profitable field indeed. Of course, my hon. and gallant Friend, who must have that in mind, was bound to make such a speech, after his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked at the Conservative Party Conference yesterday that "private enterprise, bold and large" should be inscribed upon the banner of the Tory Party. This is the inevitable consequence. There will be a great deal said about that in the ensuing months.

Mr. Lewis: Do I understand that the hon. Member personally is opposed to private enterprise?

Mr. Shinwell: I am not certain how far I shall be in Order in developing that theme. I do not propose to develop it beyond making this observation, which I think will be in Order, because we are discussing co-ordination. Wherever coordination is practicable, wherever it appears to be in the public interest, it ought to be accepted. If private enterprise means individual initiative and incentive which promotes the public weal, I accept it. I hope that that will be a satisfactory definition and clarification of the position held by my hon. Friends on these benches. I have done that quite extempore: no doubt, it could be embellished to satisfy my hon. Friends opposite.
I leave that matter, and come to the Amendment. My hon. and gallant Friend remarked, and this seemed to trouble him considerably, that the consumer must be left with a free choice of gas or electricity. He left something out. It might be paraffin oil. What is the use of talking about free choice? There are scores of villages and hamlets in this country where there is no free choice at all, and where it is not possible for the tenants of domestic dwellings to determine whether they will have gas or electricity. They take what is there, and usually it is neither gas nor electricity. One of the principal purposes of this co-ordinating proposal, when it fully emerges, is that everybody in the country, high or low, poor or wealthy, shall have access to electricity. I understood that that was one of the ideas which concerned hon. Members opposite—that agricultural labourers and farmers in isolated districts should have the opportunity of using electricity. We shall discover before long that unless we promote the use of electricity in agriculture it will be very difficult to face up to competition or to

improve our standard of living. We must not discuss these matters in an academic way or imagine that these ideas are
promoted in foreign lands, or by alien minds"—
to quote the Prime Minister yesterday. They are appropriate to the circumstances which confront us, just as several years ago, when the Prime Minister suggested railway nationalisation, he had in mind not ideas
promoted in foreign lands, or by alien minds
but the circumstances which confronted the nation at that time. It is highly desirable that we should bring together all forms of fuel and power in this co-ordinated fashion—

Captain Duncan: Including railways?

Mr. Shinwell: I will come to that in a moment—so that the Department concerned shall have the various activities under its wing and be able to promote the public good as far as possible. My hon. and gallant Friend asked whether I would include railways. I have been in Government Departments myself, and I know how much it is possible for a Minister or a Department to handle. One Department cannot handle everything. The Prime Minister recognised that fully when he created so many Ministries. I am not discussing whether it was wise to create the Minister of Fuel and Power when he did and in the form in which he did: the costly and top-heavy organisation which has emerged is, in my judgment, futile. But we are considering the future. I should not include railways, because railways ought to be co-ordinated with other forms of transport—whether under private enterprise or under nationalisation is not for me to say.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: On a point of Order, Is all tins germane to the Debate?

The Chairman (Major Milner): The hon. Member occasionally strays from the straight and narrow path, but I will do my best to restrain him from straying too far.

Mr. Shinwell: So long as it is understood that when I stray it is from the Parliamentary path and no other I do not complain. I have no desire to transgress the Rules of Order. My hon. and gallant


Friend seemed to have a great deal of latitude to deal with transport and the Ministry of Transport, and he went into the subject of agriculture, when he talked about free choice. I am replying to that. One does not know how this is going to work out. It may be that considerable emendation and modification will be necessary in time—we cannot tell. But the principle of co-ordination is very desirable, and I hope that my right hon. and gallant Friend will stand by his guns, and resist this very futile Amendment.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: I am not going to be led into any attempt to make a political speech, as the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) did, but I hope the Minister will resist this Amendment, not because of any political danger but because I think coal is going to become more precious and more expensive, and that it must be used in the best possible manner. I am sorry I cannot agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Kensington (Captain Duncan), because I hope that my right hon. and gallant Friend has got over his teething troubles and is really going to do something. A short time ago I tried to tell him, as nicely as possible, that we wanted coal, and coal at a reasonable price. I hope that he will resist this Amendment, because we want to make better use of our coal. We have had Questions in this House about whether it is only a mad theory that some of these coalmines should be converted into gas-producing places. And I want coal to be burnt more efficiently because after all we are limited in respect to water power, and coal means electricity, and electricity, coal. I think that if electricity were put under any other Ministry it would be a retrograde step, and I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will resist the Amendment.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd Georģe): If this Amendment and the consequential Amendments were accepted it would destroy the Bill. The whole purpose of the Bill is to carry into peace-time the idea of co-ordinating our fuel resources, which was implied when the Ministry was first set up in 1942. I find it difficult to follow by hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Kensington (Captain Duncan). If we left the two Amendments on the Schedule out of

the matter, and took the first Amendment on the Paper, we should find that—
the general duty of securing the effective and co-ordinated development of coal, petroleum and other minerals and sources of fuel and power …
would still remain, yet the Clause would end—
and of promoting economy and efficiency in the supply, distribution, use and consumption of fuel and power, except electricity.
I find it difficult to understand how any Minister could secure the effective and co-ordinated development of any fuel and power unless he could have regard to economy and efficiency. Therefore this Amendment, apart from destroying the Bill, would make nonsense of the Clause itself. The extrordinary thing is that my hon. and gallant Friend does apparently believe in co-ordination. He said so on the Second Reading. He does not want co-ordination in one Ministry, but in several.
12.45 p.m.
Apparently what worries my hon. and gallant Friend is that the Minister responsible for the electricity industry and the coal industry is in this difficult position—that he will be encouraging decent standards of life—at least, I hope he would—in the mining industry of this country, with proper wages, which my hon. and gallant Friend thinks will put up the price of coal, and, at the same time, there would be industries like the electricity industry wanting coal as cheaply as possible; and my hon. and gallant Friend does not think that these two things can possibly be reconciled. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to reconcile something very similar. He is asked to reduce taxation and, on the other hand, is asked from all quarters of the House to give more money to some particular object or another, and yet he still manages to co-ordinate very well. If my hon. and gallant Friend wants this co-ordination to be carried on in several Ministries the danger he fears, surely, is just as great, because if it happened that there was a very powerful Minister in charge of coal and a Minister not so very powerful in charge of electricity, I know what sort of co-ordination there would be. Electricity would come off second best. As the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) said, on the basis my hon. and gallant Friend argues, I cannot see why


the Minister of Transport should not take over coal. Equally if the consumption of fuel is the test, there is no reason why the Minister of Fuel should not take over all consuming businesses in this country. The purpose of this co-ordination is to make the most efficient use of fuel and power, and, to me, it seems quite impossible to utilise our fuel resources to the best possible extent, and to the advantage of this country, unless all the industries that consume fuel for the purpose of pro-clueing power are co-ordinated.
A report was issued the other day with regard to the Severn Barrage. Under my hon. and gallant Friend's idea, that would be considered by the Minister of Transport and whoever was in charge of electricity, but it has a very direct effect on the consumption of coal, to the extent of something like a million tons a year. I suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend that we should not make the most efficient use of the fuel and power resources of the country unless there were someone capable of seeing the whole picture. The idea that the Minister has the power to come down to the House and state whether a municipality should take gas or electricity really is not the case. I do not understand that I have any powers of that sort at all.
I come to another point. Who would be responsible for electricity in this country if my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendments to the Schedule were carried? Until the repeal of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act these powers would be with the Board of Trade. After the repeal of that Act, they would then revert to the Minister of War Transport. But my hon. and gallant Friend has another Amendment on the Order Paper that my Ministry should come to an end in 1948. Electricity would then presumably be under the Minister of Transport, and gas, petroleum and coal would be under the Board of Trade. I honestly cannot believe that the people, and the industries of this country, on the whole, would welcome the idea that in the postwar period particularly the fuel and power resources of this country could be utilised intelligently and efficiently in the national interest if they were to revert to the position in which they were before. The purpose of this Bill is mainly to be found in Clause 1, and, if this Amendment were passed, it would wreck the

Bill, and, therefore, I hope that the Committee will reject it.

Amendment negatived.

Major Markham: I beg to move, in page 1 line 14, at end, insert:
and with the abatement of smoke and other nuisances arising from the consumption of fuel or utilisation of power.
The purpose of this Amendment is to make the Minister of Fuel, in what one might regard as his permanent capacity, responsible for measures towards smoke abatement, and I should like, if the Committee will permit me, to explain what the present position is. At the moment, there are four Departments of the Government interested in this question of smoke abatement. The Ministry of Health, under the Act of 1936, was given certain powers, which, in turn, may be passed on to local authorities. The Department of the Lord President of the Council is responsible for scientific research. The Air Ministry is extremely interested in all measures dealing with the purity of the air, and is responsible for all meteorological investigations. Finally, the Ministry of Fuel comes in as being interested in the origin of all these nuisances, and the question is which is the best method of ensuring that rapid steps are taken to abate the smoke nuisance.
I think it is generally known to every hon. Member of the Committee that our great cities lose one-third of their sunshine through the unnecessary smoke produced domestically and by factories. A loss of sunshine, in its turn, creates illness and disease, which lay a very heavy toll on the nation. I do not think there is anyone who will disagree with me when I say that probably the greatest boon that could be given to the people of this country would be the boon of clear skies. In the past the Ministry of Health has certainly been interested in this matter, but not very forcefully. Under the Act of 1936 they carried out their duty by methods of persuasion and not by compulsion, and I think it is true to say that in general, over the last nine years, persuasion has failed. I should like to give three examples—a village, a great city and the nuisance of slag heaps.
Near my home is a village of only about 500 or 600 people. A small red lead factory was set up there just before the war, and, since then, it has produced


for six days a week great volumes of putrid yellow-ochre smoke, which settles down, one-sixteenth of an inch thick, over all the surrounding countryside. In spite of continued protests by the villagers and others concerned, nothing has been done to stop that smoke pollution of one of the smaller villages of Northamptonshire. If we take the case of Manchester, I think it could be shown from the figures of sunshine that smoke pollution in the centre of that city has grown over the last nine years. Therefore, I think it can be said that the Act of 1936, passed to limit the nuisance in these great cities, has only decreased the increase. Finally, there is the example of the slag heaps, which, before the war, were great smouldering conflagrations. Time after time local people interested in this question came out with proposals that these slag heaps should be doused and the fog of smoke stopped, but they were told that nothing could be done. When the war came along and it became necessary to put these slag heaps out, it was done within a very short time. That is a very good example of how- powers of persuasion fail and how there must be powers of compulsion to deal with a public nuisance.
It may be asked why the Minister of Fuel and Power should be saddled with this extra responsibility. I think my right hon. and gallant Friend will agree that he and all his colleagues are as interested as anyone in seeing that this great curse of pollution is stopped, and the reason why I suggest that he should be saddled with that responsibility is that he is responsible for the origin of the smoke. He is responsible for the fuel and for the apparatus which either creates or dissipates this air pollution. If we are to stop this trouble, as I hope it will be stopped, in a short time, it must be stopped at the source, and the only way to stop it at the source is for the Minister of Fuel to be given power to control the apparatus that is put into both houses and industry, and in selecting and, indeed, compelling, the use of the best fuels for all occasions. I need hardly say that that argument has already had considerable support in this House.
In short, I put my argument in this way. In the past four great Departments have been playing about with smoke abatement and very little has been

done. The time has come for a single Department to be responsible, root, stock and branch, and for making sure that there is some progress. Therefore, I suggest that the Amendment should be accepted by the Committee, and that the Minister should take over this responsibility and embark immediately on a policy of compulsorily producing smoke-abatement in this country.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: It is a great privilege to support what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Nottingham (Major Markham) has just said. Smoke, in the opinion of many people is one of the most serious disadvantages under which we people in this country live. One sees in the newspapers advertisements for different kinds of sun-lamps, but there is no lamp as good as the sun. This is a matter which can be tackled by the Department. I cannot help the Committee in assessing whether smoke comes from factories or from houses. I know that Manchester is a smoky place, but Liverpool is just as bad. To-day, coal has become so scarce and so expensive, that factories and manufacturers will, for economic reasons, be compelled to do away with smoke. I think I know something about this, because it is something like 4o years ago since I began to experiment and walked about with Hempel's apparatus which I used to analyse flue gases and I think I was one of the first in the country to erect a fan for inducing draught thus making a smoke-consuming plant.
1.0 p.m.
My hon. and gallant Friend gave almost perfect examples in support of his argument. I would like to quote the case of Port Sunlight. I frequently go along the main road which passes it and usually stop and watch the factory. I estimate that there must be burning something like 5,000 tons of fuel a week, and there is never a waft of smoke coming out of those, not chimneys, but very low stacks of some 60 feet high. This smoke nuisance can be tackled and I hope that the Minister will take these powers. Industry can put its house in order as soon as he can give them the necessary plant; they can do it, in the end, without any cost to themselves; of that I am satisfied. Before I came here or was interested in this question, we had two Lancashire boilers, the care of which could always be considered as one fireman's job. We put furnaces down,


with stokers, and our Smoke disappeared. I am satisfied that, even during war time, we have saved the cost of these furnaces and stokers, and we consume the smoke. My right hon. and gallant Friend will remember the deputations which have been to him, and I hope that he will insist on more improvements in the technical design of domestic grates. I believe that, in the near future, most of the smoke in big cities will be from the domestic grate and not come from the factory because the cost of fuel will make its economic use a necessity. I therefore hope a at the Minister will agree to insert these words in the Bill.

Mr. Shinwell: Although the Minister may have difficulty in accepting the precise wording of the Amendment—I am not sure what his position is: I have not been informed—I hope he will, at least, give hon. Members a sympathetic reply. There is general agreement in this matter. It could not be otherwise. Anybody who has examined the problem and many who have not examined it are only too acutely aware of the obnoxious smells, the pall of smoke that overhangs our great cities, and even our villages and small townships, and of other objectionable features that have emerged from the wrong utilisation of coal. That is the fundamental problem. Therefore, the Minister can do a great deal. Take, for example, the unsightly slag-heaps that one finds all around mining areas. I am not sufficiently informed of the technical aspects of coalmining practice, but it appears to me that, if there could be an improvement in mining practice, it would not be necessary to have slag heaps at all. The waste could be stowed away in the pits by a method similar to that adopted, I understand, in Germany to a very large extent, and, I believe, in some parts of the minefields of this country. If that were done, we might be spared these terrible sights that we see in the mining areas. As to removing the existing slag-heaps, I understand that a good deal of research on that subject was undertaken by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and that a good deal was done before the war in the utilisation of much of the material comprised in these slag-heaps, but obviously since the war, it has not been possible to do very much.
I do not know whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman can say anything about the plans that the Department has

in mind for dealing with this matter. I estimate—and I have no doubt that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Nottingham (Major Markham), who is very well informed on this matter and has made it a special study for many years will agree with me—that, with the loss to industry by the wrong use of coal, the effect on health and in other ways, the nation must be losing millions upon millions of pounds. I venture the opinion that if we had conserved our coal resources effectively before the war, and used coal efficiently and scientifically, we might have had no coal problem at all during the war, many of our Debates would have been unnecessary, my right hon. and gallant Friend would have been spared a good many headaches, and indeed, the question of setting up a Ministry of Fuel and Power might not have arisen. There are some advantages and some drawbacks, but we did not face this problem before the war. I remember that when I was at the Mines Department myself in 1924, the matter was being considered by some committee. Committees, however, talk and talk around the table, and at large, on these matters, but seldom is anything done in a practical way. Fundamentally it is a question, of coal conservation and utilisation. What the hon. Member for Heywood and Radcliffe (Mr. Wootton-Davies) said about the provision of domestic appliances for the burning of fuel and the general use of fuel is very important indeed. A good deal of study has been given to that problem, and there are a great many new devices and appliances now in use but there is a great deal more to be done on that line, and I hope that it will be done as soon as we can provide ourselves with the necessary appliances.
I am going to be quite blunt with the Committee on this matter. For many years it has been my view, and I even met with a certain amount of opposition among people in mining areas who are so accustomed to burning coal in its raw state that, if I had had the power myself—I mean real power, the sort of dictatorial power one would like to assume on certain occasions in order to get something done —I would have prevented the burning of coal in its raw state in this country. Some people like it. I think it is an abomination, and, in the long run, from the standpoint of health and of fuel conservation, it would be one of the finest


reforms in which this country could ever engage if we could prevent the burning of coal in its raw state. Smokeless fuel has emerged in a variety of forms and the burning of coke above a gas-pipe, and the burning of anthracite in anthracite stoves have been very useful but we have to get some standardisation in these matters, something which can be purchased cheaply by consumers, and, what is perhaps just as important, to get clear ideas among the people as to the importance of this issue.
Some people are wedded to the burning of fuel in certain forms. Some like to burn coke, some coal in the raw state and some prefer gas and some electricity. There is a great deal of waste in all this. I know that in some quarters they prefer the "free choice" but you can carry this "free choice" idea too far and as a result the community suffer in the long run. I am not certain how far it is possible for the Minister of Fuel and Power to deal with this matter and whether it really is not a question for the Minister of Health. My hon. and gallant Friend pointed out that it is the function of the Ministry of Health but they do not tackle the matter thoroughly and adequately.
I do not want to suggest that we should set up a separate Ministry for this purpose; that would not do at all. In any event, one must be careful about that because, if you make a suggestion in favour of the setting up of a separate Ministry, you may be met with the remark, "You are looking for the job." One must safeguard oneself against such an accusation. Some liaison between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Fuel and Power appears to be essential, but, in any event, what we want from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is an assurance that this matter is being earnestly tackled, and that he will not be handicapped by sentiment or old-fashioned ideas or traditions about the burning of fuel but will face this matter, and that in due course schemes will emerge which will promote better health for the people of this country, and assist industry to conserve its resources and make headway because we are not wasting our resources. That is the essential point. We should not waste our resources but use them efficiently.

Mr. Hynd: I should like to, say a few words on this

matter. It was quite unexpectedly that I happened to come into the Chamber while this Debate was going on. I underline one aspect which has not been sufficiently emphasised so far. I represent a constituency in the country which, I believe —and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. T. Smith) will bear me out—has the heaviest sootfall in the whole of Great Britain. In that particular constituency, not only is hardly a blade of grass to be seen, but in practically every house there is someone suffering directly or indirectly, as a result of the bad atmosphere in which they have to live due to the smoke from the chimneys of the big steel-works and factories.
On the surface it would appear evident that this is a matter for the Minister of Health, because the immediate superficial reaction is that upon health. I am wondering to what extent it is desirable, if not even necessary, that the Ministry of Fuel and Power should have much greater powers in this matter even than the Ministry of Health. The question I ask is: Why all this is necessary? There is already general agreement amongst all sections in this House that the smoke nuisance is a curse in this country, and should be tackled very effectively. I have never yet seen a satisfactory answer to the question of why the smoke nuisance continues, and has continued for such a long period, in view of the fact that everybody knows that most countries in Europe, even industrial countries, are not affected by this nuisance to the same extent. They find ways and means of overcoming it. And it is not beyond the powers of British science and research and of the British fuel and power industry to find ways and means of overcoming the trouble in this country. Therefore, the question is, Why has it not been overcome?

Mr. Wootton-Davies: Does not the hon. Member realise that we burn more coal in this country than is burnt on the Continent of Europe where coal has always been so expensive and has to be burnt in combustion stoves? The difficulty in industry has been that it is only within the last generation that we have developed technical devices to burn coal.

Mr. Hynd: I realise that the question of expense comes in. If these methods are expensive, so is the bad health result-


ing from the burning of raw coal in this country. I have another question to put to the Minister. I have been told on pretty good authority that before the war, the coalowners in this country spent many thousands of pounds in publicity, it order to discourage the effective economic use of coal and its by-products and to encourage an increased turnover from the sale of raw coal from the pits in this country. I believe that a certain amount of that sort of thing still lingers with regard to deep-mined coal as against surface coal at the present time. I do not know whether the Minister agrees or not. I am also not sure he knows how far there might be some truth in that. I have it on very good authority that that was the case before the war, and it is not out of keeping with the general practice operating under private enterprises, as everybody knows, where the impulse is to earn quick profits at any cost—

1.15 p.m.

The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman but he is going far too wide. The question is whether the Minister shall have the functions set out in the Amendment, if he has not already got them. That is really the question.

Mr. Hynd: I agree, and the point I am trying to make is the distinction between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Fuel and Power because, if left entirely to the Ministry of Health, this particular aspect would have no attention at all. I submit that if the Ministry of Fuel and Power take some interest and some powers in the matter, they are in a better position to apply—and I make no apology for using the words—some form of control where necessary, even some form of interference with private enterprise in these matters. For that reason, I believe it is desirable that, at least, some power should be given to the Ministry of Fuel and Power, even if some of the interests in this matter are left with the Ministry of Health. I would like the Minister in replying to give me some information on whether there is anything at all in the allegations to which I have referred, and which I have submitted in all good faith, because they have been given to me by people who are in a position to know.

Major Lloyd George: I would like to say this at the very outset, that I, and everyone in my Ministry, have the

greatest possible sympathy with the object which the words of this Amendment seek to achieve. The hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Hynd) referred to a part of the world which he said was about the worst for smoke pollution in the country. I can confirm that, because I remember some years ago being on the moors miles away and very high up on a beautiful summer's day and, in a very short period, it became almost night and I found that even the heather was practically covered with soot. I do not think there is really anybody in this country who would be other than sympathetic to this objective. However, I do not think that it is really necessary to put words of this sort into the Bill. As a matter of fact, if I may say so, they go a little far in that they seek to give the Minister powers with regard to the abatement of
other nuisances arising from he consumption of fuel or utilisation of power.
That would make the powers of the Minister so wide that, for instance, a motor-cycle making too much noise, would come under this definition, or a pneumatic drill, and so on, and that would go far beyond anything the Minister of Fuel and Power ought to have. The reason why I say it is not necessary to put it in the Bill is that the Minister of Health has certain powers already under the 1936 Act, and I keep in the very closest touch with him. I think the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) really gave the indication when he said that so much of this smoke is due to the wrong utilisation of fuel, and in the Bill which is before the House at the moment the Minister is charged with the duty "of promoting economy and efficiency." Whilst it is not 100 per cent. true to say that once you eliminate smoke, you have eliminated nuisance from combustion—for you still can have certain objectionable things even if all the smoke is eliminated—I should say that the basis of most of the nuisance is the wrong utilisation of fuel, as my hon. Friend said. That is why this general duty is given to the Minister of Fuel ant Power.
I can claim that during the war a very great deal has been done with regard to fuel efficiency, a great deal more than many people think. My hon. Friend referred to the possibility that if we had taken up this matter even more enthusiastically than we did before the war, it might not have been necessary for us


to have difficulties with our coal supplies, but we would have had very much greater difficulties even than we have to-day if we had not pursued this efficiency campaign as energetically as has been done. We have had the campaign, in industrial centres particularly, we have panels of engineers who visit the works, stokers are given courses of training in the right way of stoking, films and other information, and every possible method that can be used in war time. Of course, the shortage of instruments has a bad effect, but all these methods are utilised in order to create as much efficiency as possible, and there is no doubt at all that the effect, when the savings are se en by manufacturers are, in some cases, very remarkable. Even if we did not pursue it, which we intend to do, these savings would have a great effect even after the war is over.
The chairman of the National Smoke Abatement Society at a meeting only the other day paid a very generous tribute indeed to the work that the Ministry had done in regard to smoke abatement, and Dr. Dobson, who is the chairman of the Atmospheric Pollution Research Committee of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, attributed it entirely to the work of the Fuel Efficiency Campaign that there was an observed reduction of it per cent. I think he said in the sulphur-dioxide content of the atmosphere in one year—in 1942–43. The policy of the Government in this regard, if I may quote from the Housing Manual, which was issued last year, is as follows:
The Government and the industries concerned are alive to the need for developing domestic fuel appliances and installations designed to give greater efficiency and to produce the omission of smoke. Recently, both together and Separately, they have sponsored an increasing volume of research work at this end. There is now a wide-spread demand that the evil of atmospheric pollution shall be resolutely attacked, one of its principal causes being the inefficient combustion of raw bituminous coal in the home. The Government attach particular importance to smoke abatement in view of the injury to health and to general amenities caused by atmospheric pollution. The extra labour for the housewife is another evil result which must not be overlooked.
That is the policy which the Government intend to pursue. It is being pursued as far as is possible under the limitations of war but I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend of this. I have visited the research centres and a tremendous amount

of their work is concerned with this question of the right use of fuel in order to reduce the smoke nuisance as much as possible. That is not confined to the industrial appliances but, indeed, one of the important sections of the research station was entirely concerned with domestic fuel appliances, and there we had a very remarkable range of fuel burning appliances of all kinds and the most careful researches were being carried out. This work will go on. In view of the assurance I have given him, in view of the fact that the words here "economy and efficiency in the use" will cover the question of smoke as far as any Minister of Fuel and Power is concerned, in view also of the fact that this is a machinery Bill which charges me with general duties and that if I wanted any powers such as he suggests I would have to get them from the House, I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Lewis: I must confess I am a little disappointed at the Minister's reply, particularly having regard to the unanimity of the Committee on this matter. It seems to me that even if this Bill, as the Minister says, only outlines his duties, it is desirable that included in that outline of duties should be some words, placing squarely upon the Minister an obligation with regard to this smoke abatement problem. I want to make a suggestion to the Minister. He will have no opportunity of considering this matter further before Report stage, because I understand that we are to take the Report stage this afternoon. But he will have a further opportunity of considering the matter before this Bill is considered in another place. Having regard to the unanimity on the subject in this Committee this afternoon, will he undertake, between now and the consideration of the Bill in another place, to look at this problem again, to have a word with the Minister of Health about it, and see whether some words placing some such obligation on the Minister of Fuel and Power as we desire might not be inserted in the Bill in another place?

Major Markham: I would like to thank the Minister very much for the co-operative way in which he has met this Amendment. In view of his assurance that he thinks he has sufficient powers already in the Preamble of the Bill, I


shall ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. Before doing so, may I say that I am still not satisfied that the Minister now, or under this Bill, has power to make a single factory in this country adopt smoke-abating appliances? He has not got it, the Ministry of Health possibly have it under the 1936 Act but they do not proceed under that Act. I know the Minister is well intentioned but what we want to see are definite results.

Major Lloyd George: May I make it plain that, even if these words were in the Bill, they would not give me the power to do anything? Whatever I have to do, whether it be on coal or electricity, this simply gives me the general line of duties which a Minister would have to pursue. Whatever new, measure I propose, whether gas, electricity or coal, I would have to present to this House. These words would not give me the power to do anything. The Minister of Health already has power under the 1936 Act but, if we find that we need powers to insist an certain things being done, I would have to come to this House.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: I think it is true that the Minister has power to direct coal to certain places. He can make Lancashire people use Lancashire coal and Yorkshire people use Yorkshire coal. If he has power to do that under this Bill, why cannot he use the additional powers suggested by the Amendment?

Major Lloyd George: I think my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. I have no powers under this Bill of that character. I made it clear on Second Reading that the emergency powers which enable me to do what he referred to, come to an end when the emergency ceases, and therefore this Bill is to take the place of that, but it does not include any of those extraordinary powers.

Major Markham: On the assurance given by the Minister I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Appointment Of Officers, remuneration and expense,)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in Clause 3, page 2, line 14, at beginning, insert:
Subject to the provisions of this section.

1.30 p.m.
This Amendment, and the following Amendments to this Clause in the name of my right hon. and gallant Friend, all deal with the same subject and carry out a suggestion which was made in the Second Reading Debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) and, I think, by other hon. Members. The point is this, under the Bill as introduced there was a flat power to appoint two Parliamentary Secretaries. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister referred to the special duties that have been carried out by the two Parliamentary Secretaries that now exist—my right hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. G. Lloyd) who deals in the main with petroleum and oil, and my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith).
My right hon. and gallant Friend went on to say that it was not anticipated that in normal times more than one Parliamentary Secretary would be needed for this Ministry. We felt that that was an important point of principle. It is only in somewhat exceptional circumstances that a Ministry can properly require more than one Parliamentary Secretary. We felt that it was a good point that, this Ministry being set up as a permanent Ministry, it should have only one Parliamentary Secretary once we get out of the war period. This Amendment, and the other Government Amendments to this Clause, are designed to produce that result. Actually, the procedure we have adopted is this: We have taken as the period the Ministers of the Crown (Emergency Appointments) Act, which empowers Ministers to be appointed by the Crown and sit in this House for the purpose of exercising functions connected with the prosecution of the war. When that Act was introduced it did not contain any provision as to it being repealed on a specific date. But in 1942, that point having been raised, we provided for it in the House of Commons (Disqualification). Act of that year. The Act provided that these emergency appointments should be repealed by Order in Council when the emergency is over.
No doubt that would be a matter for our successors, but it seems right that the office of the extra Parliamentary Secretary, which was created for war purposes, should come to an end when the


emergency has ended, and that the Ministry should have only one Parliamentary Secretary. I think, from what was said in the Second Reading Debate, that the House accepted that during war-time, when special provisions were required in connection with oil and petroleum, it would not be unreasonable that there should be two Parliamentary Secretaries. Now we have agreed to what we were asked to do, namely, that there should be only one Parliamentary Secretary when we pass from war to peace.

Mr. Shinwell: I think the Attorney-General has accurately reflected the opinion of Members who discussed this matter on the Second Reading. Some Members opposite were definite in their request that there should be only one Parliamentary Secretary after the emergency period had passed, and I expressed that opinion myself. The Government, therefore, have acted wisely. But I am not quite clear whether at this stage we are talking on this group of Amendments, some of which are consequential.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): If the Committee approve, I think we might consider the Government Amendments on this Clause together. They all seem to cover the same point, but if anyone wants to divide on an Amendment, that can be done.

Mr. Shinwell: I am obliged, because I want to raise a point which arises on the final Government Amendment which deals with this matter. It provides that during the war period there should be two Parliamentary Secretaries, and I imagine that that is generally acceptable to the Committee. But it raises a point upon which I would like a little information. I understand—and I am open to correction—that at present one Parliamentary Secretary receives a salary, explicitly laid down in the Act of Parliament which provided for the setting up of the Ministry of Mines. That was at the rate of £1,500 a year. I am informed, however, that the other Parliamentary Secretary, for whom no provision was made in the original Act which set up the Ministry many years ago, receives £2,000 a year.

Major Lloyd George: That is so.

Mr. Shinwell: Yes, and I am not clear whether the Government are entitled to pay £2,000, which is 500 more than the

amount which was stipulated for one Parliamentary Secretary. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. G. Lloyd), who is regarded as the Secretary for Petroleum, receives £2,000 a year, whereas my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) receives £1,500 a year. I am not discussing the point of whether one deserves more than the other, or whether there should be any differentiation; all I ask is whether the Government were legally entitled, under the provisions of the original Act, or any subsequent Act, to pay more than £1,500. Apparently, this point has caused the Attorney-General and my right hon. and gallant Friend to enter into consultations. I hope it does not mean that the Government will have to come forward with an Indemnity Bill, although it might well mean that. Nor do I wish to be accused of precipitating a political crisis, but it is a point which I think is in Order because it arises out of a Government Amendment on this matter. If the Government propose that two Parliamentary Secretaries should remain until the end of the emergency then we are entitled to ask what their salaries are to be, whether there is any differentiation and, if so, under what provisions of an Act of Parliament that differentiation is provided for?

Captain Duncan: I think the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) is to be congratulated on his researches into the salaries of the two Parliamentary Secretaries to this Ministry. I, also, await with interest the result of the discussions which have just been actively pursued on the Front Bench and elsewhere. The question I want to ask, however, is: Which one, in future, will get what? The Attorney-General has just said that that is easy, and I am glad to hear it. We accept these Government Amendments as crumbs of comfort and as showing that there is one lesson to be learned from them, if not more. The Secretary for Petroleum is going out of office at a moment when we are likely to get more petrol. We must not, therefore, expect to get more coal by having more Ministers; we ought to expect more coal by having fewer Ministers.

Mr. Shinwell: Do I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman to mean that if we abolish the Ministry entirely we ought to get more coal?

Captain Duncan: Yes, that was my point on the Second Reading.

Mr. Lewis: I would like to thank the Attorney-General, and also my right hon. and gallant Friend, for having so completely met the criticism which I made on the Second Reading on this matter. In the circumstances, I shall not desire to move any of the Amendments standing in my name.

Major Lloyd George: The researches of my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) were not really so necessary as all that. As I understand it, the fact is that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. G. Lloyd) was appointed Secretary for Mines under the Ministers of the Crown (Emergency Appointments) Act, 1937. Later, when the office of Secretary for Petroleum was created under the same Act, he became Secretary far Petroleum at a salary of £2,000 a year and when this Ministry was set up it was, I think, specified—I regret I have not the actual words with me—that he would continue to receive a salary of £2,000 in respect of his duties as a Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Fuel and Power and as Chairman of the Oil Control Board.

The Attorney-General: I would like to point out that there is to be only one Parliamentary Secretary, who will receive the salary of an ordinary Parliamentary Secretary, which is at present £,1,500 a year.

Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand that at the end of the emergency period it is the Government's intention to abolish the office of Secretary for Petroleum?

Major Lloyd George: We can have only one Parliamentary Secretary, The Oil Control Board, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Lady wood is Chairman, will probably come to an end, I cannot say; but at any rate there can be only one Parliamentary Secretary in the Ministry.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 2, line 14, leave out from "appoint," to the first "and," in line 15, and insert, "a Parliamentary Secretary."

In line 20, leave out "any," and insert" the."

In line 26, leave out the second "any," and insert "the."

In line 32, at the end, add:
(4) Until the date upon which the repeal of the Ministers of the Crown (Emergency Appointments) Act, 1939, takes effect under Section three of the Ministers of the Crown and House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1942, two persons may hold office together as Parliamentary Secretaries to the Ministry of Fuel and Power, and accordingly the foregoing provisions of this Section shall have effect, until that date, as if in Sub-section (r) for the words 'a Parliamentary Secretary' there were substituted the words not more than two Parliamentary Secretaries, 'and as if in Sub-section (2) for the words' the Parliamentary Secretary,' in both places where those words occur, there were substituted the words any Parliamentary Secretary.'"—[Major Lloyd George.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Interpretation.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 3, line 15, leave out "In," and insert:
Fur the purposes of Sub-section (1) of Section one of.
1.45 p.m.
This is really a drafting Amendment but it requires a little explanation. Clause 6 (1) provides that the expressions "coal" and "petroleum" shall include products of coal and petroleum, and we wanted to put in those words in order that it might be clear under Clause 1 (1), where the general duties of the Minister are set out, that he should be enjoined to take into account not only coal and coke but its by-product, and what can be done with it. As drafted, it applies to the word "coal" wherever it appears and, if left as it was, it might have been too wide. The First Schedule says that all functions exercised by the Board of Trade in relation to coal are to be transferred to the Ministry. If that was left as it stands it might be too wide, because it might mean that any function of the Board of Trade in connection with any by-product of coal was automatically transferred.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 3, line 17, leave out from beginning to end of line 18.

In line 21, leave out "said Order in Council" and insert "Minister, of the


Crown (Minister of Fuel and Power) Order, 1942."—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Duration.)

This Act shall continue in force until the thirty-first clay of December, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, and no longer, unless Parliament otherwise determines.—[Captain Duncan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Captain Duncan: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I believe there are far too many Ministers in this House. I added them up the other day in one of the issues of the OFFICIAL REPORT and found that there were 102, excluding officers of the Household. If we subtract some Ministers in another place, and add those who have reason to be grateful to the Government, such as the Chairman of the Forestry Commission, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the Governors of the B.B.C. and the Parliamentary Private Secretaries who, although unpaid, are tied to the Government, there are, in my estimate, 140 to 150 Members who are interested in the existence and the continuation of the Government.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has forgotten the 140 others who think they may get a job.

Captain Duncan: I wanted to be as short as I could. The first reason why I want the Bill to be of limited duration is that there should be, before the end of 1948, a review by the Government to see whether one of those who are left could not be got rid of also. The next point is that this Ministry, as it stands, is controlling coal, oil, gas and electricity. No one can foretell the future of any of these industries, particularly coal, and it seems to me that one is putting the cart before the horse in setting up a machine before one sees what that machine is to control. I am borne out in that by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Drake (Lieut.-Colonel Henry Guest), who on the Second Reading said:
I think that to try to set up a Ministry for all time by a vote to-day, until we have judged the,great question of nationalisation or not

nationalisation, would be most unwise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1945; Vol. 408, C. 1151.]
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fylde (Lieut-Colonel Lancaster), although he supported the Second Reading, said he was watching the Ministry with some anxiety to see how it would develop. There, again, it seems to me there is a reason to review the position and the powers of the Ministry in three years' time. It was a war-time Ministry set up for a specific war-time purpose and it was created purely for war-time purposes. If it is allowed to continue indefinitely it seems to me that a precedent may be created for other war-time Ministries, which seems to me dangerous unless we can get a definite statement that its continuation will not create a precedent for the continuation of other war-time Ministries. Again, coal, in my opinion, should not be under the sole control of a Ministry of Fuel and Power, but should be under the aegis of the Board of Trade. I think we must look forward, if we are going to have a prosperous coal industry after the war, to a large expansion of the export trade. The Board of Trade are the people—

The Deputy Chairman: This is, after all, only a very limited Amendment. The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot discuss whether it should be under the Board of Trade or some other Ministry.

Captain Duncan: I will say no more, except that there should be a review of the set-up of the Ministry in three years' time to see whether the co-ordination between it and the Board of Trade is sufficiently good to justify its continuation. I have chosen the particular date because I think that on 30th June, 1948, the Porter Award Wages Agreement comes to an end, and I wanted to give the Ministry six months to review wages, and to set up a wages organisation, so that, if it was decided to discontinue the Ministry after the end of 1948, there would he six months to settle the situation. I am extremely anxious that the coal industry should be reorganised, and I want to give them three years to do it. I think that we are all agreed that, whatever the system of the coal industry may be in future, we must have a change which will make it much more prosperous than it was before, and we want to give the Ministry three years' trial


to see if it, can make a success of it. At the end of the three years there should be a review to see whether the doubts and fears expressed on the Second Reading were right, and, if they are justified by the event, the Ministry ought to come to an end in 1948.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has offered some observations on the number of Ministries in the Coalition Government. There I am in full sympathy with him. There are too many Ministries. But these Ministries were created by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Conservative Party. They were not created by Members, certainly not by Members on this side, but by the Prime Minister, who is solely responsible. There is the villain of the piece. The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) said that many Members on this side occupy positions in the Ministry. I understand that they occupy positions in proportion to their numbers in the House. Whether there are too many is a matter of opinion. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether this Ministry should be terminated, in its proposed form, in 1948. Any Ministry can be terminated if there is a strong expression of opinion to that effect in the House. Pressure can be brought to bear on the Government of the day at any time to terminate any Ministry.

Captain Duncan: Can the hon. Member give an instance?

Mr. Shinwell: I agree that it is not automatic, but there have been occasions when, because of strong pressure on the Government, certain Ministries, not immediately but in due course, have been terminated.

Colonel Lyons: Can the hon. Member state a single instance when that has happened through pressure?

Mr. Messer: There was a Ministry of Co-ordination of Defence, which had to go because the House was against it.

Mr. Shinwell: We have had several instances where there have been modifications. We had a Ministry of Shipping, which was amalgamated with the Ministry of Transport because of pressure brought to bear on the Government, and there have been several instances of that

kind. No one will deny that, if a majority of Members at any given moment wished to bring any Ministry to an abrupt termination, they could do so. The Government could not resist such a demand. That must be obvious to anybody.
2.0 p.m.
What is my hon. and gallant Friend objecting to? Not to the existence of the Ministry, but to its powers. He is afraid that its powers are too comprehensive. He is obviously afraid that those powers may be abused—from his point of view—and he agrees that if the Ministry were terminated in 1948, we could revert to the old Ministry of Mines under the aegis of the Board of Trade. Although the Ministry will have the apparent power—it is no more than that—which is provided for in the Bill, it will still be a Ministry of sorts, and 1948, even allowing for the six-months period for the termination of the Porter Award, may not be the best possible time. It is probably the worst possible time. In fact, I cannot imagine a worse time. The hon. and gallant Member seems to think that if we allow six months for the settlement of the wage question, that will be the only issue involved, but there may be a series of issues. There may be a serious crisis in the coal industry. Is this House to engage in acrimonious controversy as to whether this Ministry should go on or not, at a time when there is a serious crisis in the coal industry?
If the Porter Award is terminated in June, 1948, does the hon. and gallant Member suggest that a settlement of the wages question can be effected within six months? I believe that a much longer time will be needed. We cannot tell, and it is all highly speculative. Surely the one thing we want is some measure of stability in these matters. I cannot imagine any time when stability will be more required than in the next half-dozen years or so, to assist in reupholstering British industry. It will require that very badly and if we are to "monkey about" with Ministries that are concerned with fundamental industrial problems, it may go very hard with us.
I can understand our divesting ourselves of the Ministry of Production—I know this may not be strictly in Order. If I had my way I would abolish the Ministry of Production to-morrow, and I would do the same with the Ministry of


Information. There is a number of Ministries which are of no use at all, because they are redundant. That case ought to be expressed very forcibly and put to the Prime Minister. After all, those Ministries have had a fair run, and they ought to go. They are no longer necessary to the war effort; but here is a Ministry that is necessary for the war effort. We have agreed to that, and have accepted that principle. The Ministry is surely necessary, if we are to build up our industrial life in the future as to its direction and its activities. Surely the hon. and gallant Member recognises that we have already settled that matter. It is not the Minister who determines it. He can be questioned, criticised and castigated. I was about to say that he can be called upon to resign, but that is not an activity to which Ministers usually apply themselves. It is very seldom that a Minister resigns.
We can interrogate Ministers every day when the House is sitting and, when they come forward with legislation, we can subject it to fierce and hostile criticism either with a view to rejecting it or to amending it. The power lies in our hands. So, in 1948, which is the date which the hon. and gallant Member has in view, if we feel strongly, if my hon. and gallant Friend is here and if I am here, even with a reduced majority, and if we are not satisfied with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who may still be Minister of Fuel and Power, we can tell him so, and both of us can bring pressure to bear upon the then Prime Minister to draw this Ministry to an end, if we regard it as unsatisfactory.
This is not the way to handle a Ministry, giving it a short period of life. It must go ahead with its mind concentrated on its problems and with the idea forcibly impressed upon it that it has room to breathe and years of life before it. The problems relating to coal will not be settled in three years. Problems of coal utilisation and conservation, and cognate problems will not be settled in three years. I doubt whether they will be settled during the next 10 years. At any rate, we have to make the effort. I therefore hope that the proposed Amendment will not be accepted.

Major Lloyd: I found the arguments of my hon. and gallant

Friend who moved the Amendment very potent, and it is a pity that more Members were not here to hear them. The Minister will not be surprised at finding my name supporting the Amendment, if he recalls some of the remarks I made in the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. I found the greatest reluctance in not trying to prevent the Bill having a Second Reading at all. I made it clear in my speech then that I was only prepared to do so if the Bill were amended in Committee so as to limit the period during which the Ministry was to be continued. I therefore welcome the opportunity of associating myself with this Amendment, which has been so ably and cogently moved.
My principal reason for wanting the period of existence of the Ministry to be limited is that I think the Ministry has a bad record. I do not propose to repeat now the reasons that I gave in my Second Reading speech, but there is no doubt that it would be extraordinarily difficult for anybody who was not extremely biassed the other way to defend the record of the Ministry from the results which have been shown. The mining industry is in chaos. The responsibility of the Ministry for controlling the industry has been clear from the first, but the chaotic condition of the industry has not been improved by the control exercised by the Ministry, although I am perfectly willing to believe that the Ministry has done its best; but that is not a defence. I object also to this Ministry, which has made a thorough mess of the mining industry, has failed to produce the coal for the people and done little or nothing to stop disgraceful strikes, which still prevail all over the mining world—

Shinwell: On a point of Order. I am sorry, but I must raise this point of Order. I know that hon. Members want a little latitude, but are we entitled to discuss strikes? In view of the fact that we have accepted the Ministry, are we now entitled to discuss whether the Ministry should continue?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member who has raised the point of Order himself covered a very wide range in his speech. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who is now addressing the Committee is giving reasons, I understand, why he does not want this Ministry continued indefinitely, and why three years should be


its limit. On an Amendment such as this, we cannot go into the whole question of the organisation of the coal industry. The discussion has already gone a very long way and I must rule that we cannot go into the question of the whole running of the Ministry. We have already accepted the Ministry, and now we are considering a proposal for limiting its term of life to three years.

Major Lloyd: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Williams, and I will certainly respect it, but I think the Committee will agree that when we are asked to employ somebody for an indefinite period of time we have to inquire whether the record of past service is sufficient to warrant the engagement, or whether it should be for a more limited period of time. This applies to the Ministry of Fuel and Power. I think it should have a chance in the post-war world to rehabilitate itself in the respect and confidence of the country. Its handling of the coal industry during the war has won it no confidence at all. It is with that motive that I most warmly support the Amendment to limit the period of time.
My second point is that I do not want the Ministry to control indefinitely anything other than coal and mining. Let us go back to the Ministry of Mines, if necessary, after the period suggested in the Amendment. I see no reason why we should have a Ministry controlling petrol, gas, electricity, or any other fuel at all. I am willing to admit that it may be necessary and advisable to do so during the war, but why the Prime Minister should be blamed by implication I cannot see. The Prime Minister may have set up the Ministry, but he did it presumably with the full collective responsibility of the Coalition Government and presumably with the full consent of this House, including the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell).

Mr. Shinwell: Oh, no. He had no consent from me.

Major Lloyd: Surely the principle of collective responsibility must apply. The Prime Minister cannot be blamed for having set up this Ministry, see no reason why petrol, oil and other forms of fuel should be controlled indefinitely after the war. Let us see what the situation may be in 1948. It may be very different. We may have a very different form of

Government. Public opinion has become so tired of Governmental central control that people may want to reduce it to a minimum. I am hopeful that they will. The date suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend is a very reasonable one. It may be that 1948 will be in the post-war period and, as my hon. and gallant Friend said, the Porter Award on coal wages will be coming to its close. It is to be hoped —

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Tom Smith): It should be clearly stated that the Porter Award does not come to an end in 1948. It is the wages agreement that ends, which is separate from the award.

Major Lloyd: I am sorry, and I beg pardon. I appreciate the point, which is that the wages agreement will be coming to an end. There will be a little lapse of time after the war for us to shake ourselves together and I am looking forward to the day when the industry will be freed as much as possible from the controls which must be put on during the war. Here, we are tying up the industry to a Department which loves controlling yet has made a mess of it.

Colonel Lyons: I want to say a word in support of what has just been said by my hon. and gallant Friend. I listened with fascination to what was said by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell). Despite the knowledge which he customarily brings to bear on these matters, I still think that no case has been made out for continuing this Ministry indefinitely. One has only to think of the trouble there has been throughout the country and to look at the record of the Ministry which we are proposing to set up indefinitely. When one thinks of the chaos that has been caused among the consumers of coal I do not see how we can possibly say that a case has been presented for an indefinite period of continuation of this Ministry, and I see no reason why the matter should not be reviewed automatically in 1948.
As I understand the hon. Member for Seaham, he says: "No, let us have this Ministry indefinitely, and then, if necessary, or at any other time, Parliamentary pressure can unite to bring the matter on to the Floor of the House for examination." That, I think, was the point of


his argument as to why it should be allowed to continue. It is perfectly true, I suppose, that the collective power of this House could do anything with any Ministry. All we ask is that there should be automatic action at the end of a certain period. Knowing how the Ministry has failed since its birth, and knowing the chaos that it has failed to stop, we say that in four years' time there should be another automatic examination of the Ministry. May I remind the Committee that one of the powers of the Ministry is the efficient distribution of coal? Would anybody say that there has been any efficiency at all in distribution while this Ministry has been in existence?

2.15 p.m.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: It seems to me that hon. Members on both sides have missed one of the essential functions of the Ministry, a function which, I think, might justify its continuance for an almost indefinite period. The main function of the Ministry so far has been to be the whipping boy for the Ministry of Labour. The Ministry of Labour having got the whole labour situation in a hopeless state, particularly in the mining industry, the Ministry of Mines is here to take the kicks so that we cannot get at the Ministry of Labour, which is responsible for the whole of the trouble in the coalfields.

Mr. Messer: The hon. and gallant Member for East Leicester (Colonel Lyons) referred to the chaos in the industry and attributed it to the existence of the Ministry.

Colonel Lyons: I was referring to the chaos in the distribution of coal.

Mr. Messer: And the hon. and gallant Member attributed it to the existence of the Ministry. I ask him, as a reasonable man, what he thinks would have happened if there had not been a Ministry during the war.

Colonel Lyons: Since my hon. Friend asks me, I will say this. In my constituency there never has been more trouble in getting coal, never mind the high cost, and never more empty grates than during the existence of the Ministry.

Mr. Messer: There has never been such a war. This Ministry has been functioning under the greatest difficulties. I have

met some of the difficulties, as every Member who is in contact with his constituents has, but when they are examined it is easily seen that had there been no Ministry there would have been such a condition of affairs as would have brought about revolution in this country. It has been said that the Ministry is not justified in any event, and that we should put a period to its existence, because, even in exceptional circumstances, it cannot be foreseen that the Ministry will be required after the period mentioned. That view fails to understand what is the true value of the service which is involved in coal, fuel, gas and electricity. Hon. Members have to understand that there are certain things which are essential to existence, and these things must be removed from the sphere of the profit-making motive. Because they are essential in the lives of the people, they should be controlled—

The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot discuss the profit motive on this Bill.

Mr. Messer: I was going to show that a time will arrive when we shall have to regard the value of what the miner produces, not at the price he gets at the end of the week, but as a service which enters into every aspect of social and commercial life. Because of that fact, it is not possible for us to leave such important services to the free play of private enterprise. If we put a termination on the period of the Ministry it means that as soon as that time arrives we shall throw industrial life into the chaos which will arise from the necessity of making it pay and produce a profit. If we put a period to the life of the Ministry, it will mean that this industry must become completely uncontrolled, and this will lead to a chaos which will mean that the people will suffer. If and when a time arrives when the Ministry is no longer required it will cease to exist.

Captain Duncan: Will it?

Mr. Messer: The hon. and gallant Member will know that the brilliant brains of the Conservative Government created a Ministry which was called the Ministry of Thought, and because that Ministry thought nothing it passed out of existence. There was also a Ministry for the Co-ordination of Defence, and because there was no co-ordination and not defence, it went out of existence. The truth is scientifically that as soon as a


thing ceases to have any purpose, and as soon as there is no longer any reason for its existence, it ceases to exist.

Mr. A. Hopkinson: Therefore, since the Ministry has brought the production of coal to nothing, it should automatically cease to exist? I agree.

Mr. Messer: The hon. Member is a better judge of nothing than I am, because his peculiar way of looking at things is to escape from the unalterable process of evolution. We cannot go back to the period when we lived as individuals; life is becoming more complex. This Ministry is a very important Ministry and is justified by the value of the service which it has rendered.

Mr. T. Smith: I hope that the Committee will not hesitate to reject the new Clause. I have heard from my hon. Friends behind me no sound reasons for it. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Kensington (Captain Duncan) asked if the continuance of this Ministry would establish a precedent. There is no question of a precedent. It stands on merit, and the merits of the case are that this Ministry should continue in the post-war world.

Captain Duncan: Does the hon. Gentleman speak for the Government when he says that it is not a precedent?

Mr. Smith: It is not a question of precedent, but of merit. My hon. and gallant Friend asked whether the continuance of the Ministry was linked up with the question of nationalisation. There were a number of Members before the Second Reading who took the view that the continuance of the Ministry would make it more difficult to nationalise the mines. This is not a question which has any connection with the continuance of the Ministry, because, if the electors decide that the mines shall be nationalised, the Government will find ways and means of doing it. Experience showed that to have electricity under the Ministry of Transport, gas under the Board of Trade and coal under the Mines Department was not the best way of dealing with them. They all have a common origin and, therefore, the Ministry of Fuel and Power took them over. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd) seemed to be losing his temper slightly, and I do

not mind exchanging a few blows with him about what he said. Some people seem to imagine that strikes in the mining industry only started after this Ministry was set up. I had been through about eight before I became Parliamentary Secretary. The fault with regard to strikes does not lay with my right hon. and gallant Friend. He has done a great deal for the mine workers, and whether all have played the game or not does not matter. Strikes have been—

The Deputy-Chairman: I interrupted the hon. and gallant Gentleman on that point. This is not the time to discuss strikes.

Mr. Smith: I must apologise. The hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew said on Second Reading, and repeated it to-day, that the year 1948 was chosen because the wages agreement then comes to an end and that would be an appropriate time to review the whole situation. On the contrary, it would be one of the worst things, because the impression in the mining industry would be that we would be getting ready for a show-down at that time. I remember when the Mine Minimum Wage Act was passed in 1912 for three years only. What the lads used to say in the coalfields was, "What's going to happen at the end of three years? Are we going back to the days when there was no minimum wage?" Owing to the war the Minimum Wage Act was put in the Expiring Laws Bill, and it has been there ever since.
It is essential to give something like continuity and stability to the mining industry. It was largely owing to the concern about the long-term problem in mining that my right hon. and gallant Friend was induced to ask for powers to continue this 'Ministry on something like a permanent basis, that the House of Commons has got the power to say either "yea" or "nay" to any Ministry, that it has been done, and that it can be done again. A Vote can be withheld, and if a Ministry does not get its Vote it 'cannot exist. A good deal of preparatory work has been done in the last three years. There are large numbers of reports now being submitted upon which action will have to be taken. There are the regional surveys, which will deal with development work, with new sinkings and with all that goes on to make something like a coal policy. There is the question of the


Reid Committee Report, which will deal with making the industry more efficient. It is not a question of a three-year policy in the mining industry; there must be a longer term policy than that.

Major Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is assuming, which I cannot accept as an assumption, that the control of the mining industry by his Department really increases efficiency.

Mr. Smith: In some respects it has done, but we should be out of Order in discussing that. Then there is the Severn Barrage Report, which envisages a period of eight years for its maturity. What would be the position of a Ministry with these long-term policies in front of it if it were under sentence of death?
There are other activities in the Ministry besides mining. There is the gas industry. Does anybody believe that the present structure of that industry is perfect? There is the Heyworth Committee sitting, to consider the structure of the gas industry. Then again, in electricity there is plenty of room for improvement, efficient though it is in many ways. It would be wrong and a retrograde step to limit the life of the Ministry to three years with all these matters before it. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Leicester (Colonel Lyons) talked without his brief and without knowledge in the few things he said about coal distribution and what the Ministry had done. He does not know the facts. There was no more chaotic service in the country than coal distribution before some action was taken. There were 30,000 coal merchants, not co-ordinated or linked up in any way except through the merchants' organisation. The House Coal Distribution Scheme did a good deal, and I am going to pay this tribute to the Service Directorate of our Ministry which does not get much praise. It has done a very good job of work. There are towns and cities which have actually consumed more household coal during the war winters than ever they did in peace time. One of the difficulties in peace time was this—

2.30 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman: It was precisely at this point that I interrupted the previous discussion and I said then that it is going far too wide.

Mr. Smith: I was making the point because the coal distribution comes under the Minister, and I did want to say that the service side of the Ministry had done a good job. In conclusion, may I say there is absolutely every argument that the mining industry and all it means should have a Ministry which was not limited in life and I ask the Committee to reject this Clause.

Captain Duncan: What the hon. Gentleman said does not convince me at all. The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) did not convince me. He had such a pathetic confidence in the efficacy of Ministers.

Mr. Shinwell: Surely the hon. Member has misunderstood me. I tried to convey the opposite impression.

Captain Duncan: The hon. Member wants the continuation of this Ministry, whereas we have just had the most wonderful lesson in regard to getting rid of a Secretary for Petroleum at the very moment when we want some more petrol.

Mr. Shinwell: The whole point is that we could make better use of the petrol than of the Secretary.

Captain Duncan: What we want is more coal. Certainly my constituents do. The hon. Member said that if the Ministry was going to be inefficient and undesirable, then we should combine at the right moment and guide it. I wish I had the same faith in Parliamentary ability to do this. I wish it might be possible. I am not satisfied in leaving this Bill as it is to-day, without a limitation which might lead to an automatic review of the situation. I am afraid if we let it go we shall have this Ministry saddled on the taxpayers of the country for the rest of our existence. There is, however, a very small attendance in the Committee, it is Friday afternoon, and in those circumstances, what point is there in my challenging a Division? If there was a bigger attendance, I might have taken the necessary action. The Parliamentary Secretary did, however, afford me one grain of hope for which I want to thank him. He said that this Bill is not a precedent for the continuation of other war-time Ministries. I heard him say that quite clearly, and I want to get it on record. He told us that quite frankly and bluntly from the Front Bench, speaking as a


Minister, and I accept it from him as speaking for the Government and implicating them in what he has said—

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid this form of argument is going far outside the scope of the Bill, and it certainly cannot continue.

Captain Duncan: I only wanted to make that particular point. I do not propose to pursue my opposition to this Bill, or to pursue my desire to pass this new Clause, and therefore I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Hon. Members: No.

Question, "That the Clause be read Second time," put, and negatived.

Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.

Bill reported; with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

PURCHASE TAX (CHARGES) (UTILITY FUR GARMENTS)

2.40 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): I beg to move,
That the Purchase Tax (Charges) (No. 1) Order, 1945, dated 14th February, 1945, made by the Treasury under Section 20 of the Finance (No. 2) Act. 1940, a copy of which Order was presented on 46th February, 1945, be approved.
I would like the House to consider at the same time the Purchase Tax (Alteration of Rates) (Utility Fur Garments) Order which is also on the Paper. These two small Orders are presented at one and the same time, to do something for those who would like to buy inexpensive fur coats, and to help the, fur trade over a particularly difficult.period. The fur trade, although a small one, is one of considerable value to the general make-up of our industry. Before the war there was a bulk trade, import and export, of some £20,000,000 to £25,000,000, and the fur trade is now faced with a rather peculiar pair of difficulties. On the one hand, fur coats are subject to coupons, and on the other, they are subject to Purchase Tax at the rate of no less than too per cent. It has been represented to us that if we allowed some of the cheaper skins to be made into inexpensive coats it would enable some members of the fur trade to

tide over a very difficult period. Therefore, these two Orders are laid before the House. The first reduces the Purchase Tax on certain classes of fur coats from zoo per cent. to 16⅔ per cent. The class of coats so produced are to be marked "utility," but by an existing Order, any goods marked "utility" are altogether free of Purchase Tax. The Treasury are not prepared completely to free fur coats from Purchase Tax, because they feel they should pay 16⅔ per cent.

Mr. Shinwell: Why?

Captain Waterhouse: That is the view of the Treasury.

Mr. Shinwell: Why?

Captain Waterhouse: Because the Treasury think that a certain amount of revenue is due from those who will be able to pay for this class of fur coat. Therefore, the second of these Orders amends the existing Order by putting in a provision that certain classes of utility coats, to wit fur coats marked "utility," may be charged at a duty of 16 2/3 per cent. and shall not be duty free.

2.42 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: My right hon. and gallant Friend has explained this matter in his usual lucid fashion, but he has omitted to tell us why the Government have decided to make a precedent, for that is exactly what it is. All utility garments are exempt form Purchase Tax. That is the position. The Government now propose to depart from that principle, a very important one indeed and one that commended itself to hon. Members. No one likes the Purchase Tax. When the utility principle was adopted, hon. Members were gratified to learn that there was no Purchase Tax to be paid. Now we have the proposition to impose a Purchase Tax of 16⅔ per cent. on utility fur garments. We know that the more expensive articles—I do not know what they are called—skunk, mink, or sable—the furs are all familiar to the hon. Members opposite, to their wives and their lady friends—[interruption.] I do not think there is anything objectionable in that observation. Why should hon. Members not have lady friends? The Prime Minister said nothing about it in his speed' yesterday so we might regard it as quite permissible. These expensive fur garments are taxed 100 per cent. That un-


doubtedly brings revenue into the Exchequer, and of course the purchasers of these expensive garments, who are not always the wearers of the garments, as we know, have to pay very high prices, and those prices of course they can well afford. Now the Government propose to assist British industry, and—I presume this is part of the new industrial organisation the Government propose to assist—by enabling the people in the fur trade to utilise more inexpensive skins.
I should like to ask my right hon. and gallant Friend what are these-inexpensive skins. I think a little information on this subject would be very useful, not so much for hon. Members, but so that the general public, who may be the purchasers of these inexpensive garments, made of inexpensive skins, should know precisely what is their foundation, or derivation. The public should not be imposed upon particularly as they are to be asked to pay 16⅔ per cent. Purchase Tax. After all, what is this project, a Bill to assist the fur trade? Undoubtedly it will enable those women of the so-called lower classes who can afford it, to buy these less expensive fur garments. But there is another object and that is to provide revenue for the Exchequer. Why is the Chancellor of the Exchequer not here? Why does he leave it to the Parliamentary Secretary? This is almost like a Budget day; it is a Budget proposal. If I had ventured to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on an appropriate occasion whether he intended to impose further taxation, he would have reminded me that that would be anticipating his Budget Statement. But now, anticipating the Chancellor's statement, along comes the Parliamentary Secretary, fresh from the Board of Trade and his consultations with the fur trade, and asks us to accept a new principle, namely, the imposition of Purchase Tax on utility garments. It is a very serious proposal.
I must ask my right hon. and gallant Friend to furnish rather more elaborate explanations before expecting us to accept this proposal. Frankly I would venture on a general warning to the public to be very sceptical of the value of these utility fur garments. If my right hon. and gallant Friend can prove to hon. Members that these utility fur garments are really worth while, and it is better to produce them

than to heighten the length of the socks of the male sex—I do not know which is more important—he should tell us all about it. I feel that we are being imposed on by this important financial proposal being put forward on a Friday afternoon. It is the submission of a new principle, establishing a precedent which may extend. My right hon. and gallant Friend may come along next Friday afternoon, when not many are present, perhaps, except a few lynx-eyed and vigilant hon. Members, who are careful to safeguard the interests of the community, and he may seek to impose Purchase Tax on some other utility article. Thus in due course we may find ourselves, as a result of a succession of Friday afternoons with the exemption from Purchase Tax on utility articles completely destroyed, and the public mulcted in more indirect taxation. My right hon. and gallant Friend cannot, in his bland, urbane fashion, and with his innocent appearance, come along and seek to impose on hon. Members in this House. I think this important question deserves further explanation.

2.47 P.m.

Mr. Mack: I was amazed at the versatility of my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell). I have heard him delight the House on many occasions with viewpoints and criticisms on a variety of subjects, but I scarcely thought he would be participating in this little discussion.

Mr. Shinwell: I was asked to do so by the party.

Mr. Mack: I understood that that distinction was conferred upon my hon. Friend from some other source, and I am surprised at the alacrity he has shown. I agree with him there ought not to be a distinction made between a utility coat and other utility goods. I understand these coats are to sell at £29 18s. 6d., which will include the 16⅔ per cent. Purchase Tax. I have learned a lot about fur coats in the last year or two, and I have been staggered by the revelations. The ladies of Mayfair do not to-day wear these very expensive fur coats, or if they do, they do not as a rule purchase them in a way which means the payment of Zoo per cent. tax. If they did, they would be paying up to £6,000 for a mink coat. The more expensive furs are mink, chinchillas—which are absolutely prohibitive and are being sold at Miami in Florida


at £10,000 each, which I regard as a disgraceful exhibition of luxury—Russian sables and furs of that description. Today a great deal of work—I do not know whether I am right in calling it illicit—is going on underground, in order to produce these garments. Money is being exchanged, usually in £1 notes. It is not unusual to find £I,000 or £2,000 in one pound notes changing hands, because no receipts are required or desired for these garments.
To-day the people who wear these luxury types of fur coats are wearing second-hand ones.

Captain Waterhouse: Is the hon. Member referring to these utility fur coats, at prices of £20 or £30, in connection with his statement that thousands of pounds are changing hands?

Mr. Mack: No, I was drawing a distinction, first, as to the very expensive coats, and, secondly, directing attention to the fact that the fur trade is not getting a living from thorn, because very few people can buy them. Thirdly, would point out they do not yield an economic profit to the people who manufacture them, owing to the difficulties of labour, which is highly technical and skilled, and other considerations. Now the skins of rats, cats, moles, ferrets and rabbits and other animals are being used, some of which make warm durable garments suitable for people of very limited means. It ought to be stated that the fur merchants —and London has always been one of the greatest centres of the trade in the world —have suffered very severely, in consequence of the fact that their trade has been restricted in all the higher priced garments. Now their only hope of any trade at all is to give to the ordinary working woman, the woman of limited means, a utility garment which has usefulness and a certain amount of appearance, is well made, and will wear fairly well.
If a garment is to be priced at under £30 I would like to know what the Chancellor estimates this tax is likely to yield in a full year. I think the type of coat to which I have just alluded is one that the average working woman would like to buy, because one cannot buy a well -tailored coat of non-utility cloth for under £15, £20 or£25 I quite agree that utility garments are cheaper, but in view of the labour involved, and the difficulty of getting

materials, the average woman finds herself hard-up for coupons and money to buy a decent garment to cover herself with a certain amount of respectability. Surely these cheap coats meet that requirement from the working-class woman's point of view. It is rather unkind, to use no stronger words, for the Chancellor to say, "I am going to intrude on this, and break all previous rules, and establish a precedent by taxing these utility garments to the extent of 16⅔ per cent." As my hon. Friend the Member for Sea-ham has said, the Chancellor is not here to defend a position which directly concerns his Department. What indication have we that this kind of thing will not be perpetrated upon us again in the very near future? I understand that these coats can be distributed in large measure, because the rabbit is an animal which reproduces itself very quickly and is relatively inexpensive. Though only certain types can be used for this purpose, it will be possible to manufacture a considerable number of these garments, which are very badly required. They will be eagerly snapped up and be a boon to women who like to have a fairly good-looking type of garment.

2.55 P.m.

Commander Kinģ-Hall: One of the great mysteries is certainly the fur coat. I think it would be interesting if the Minister could indicate, broadly, what are the furs which will be used for utility fur garments. For instance, the rabbit and the cat will, presumably, be in the cheaper class. If a list is to be published, I would support the view that the list should really describe what the fur is, so that people may know what they are buying. I rise to support the view of the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), that we should have a little more information as to what proportion of the fur trade will now be covered by the utility fur garments, so that we may know what we are doing; also, that if and when a description is given of these garments, it should be an accurate account, instead of the furs going under these fancy names, which mean nothing, but deceive the public.

2.57 p.m.

Captain Waterhouse: I cannot give a precise answer on the exact proportion of the fur trade which will be utility because I do not know, but I can give a


certain amount of information as to the origin of the furs. They are such skins as sheepskins, lambskins, dingoskins, moleskins, coney, and genet, which may or may not be some relation to the electric rabbit, since it certainly is a form of cat. Principally, however, they are of the kind which is commonly known as rabbit, either tame or wild. As the House well knows, the prices for long coats will be between £16 £25. 6d. and £28 18s. 6d. retail. The 16⅔ per cent. tax is on the wholesale price. Therefore, all reference by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Mack) to very expensive furs are really irrelevant. My hon. Friend said that he was sceptical about the value of these furs. I do not think he need be. He does not expect to get for £16 12s. 6d., or even for £28 18s. 6d., a fur coat which can be handed down as an heirloom to his great-grand-daughter. But if he chooses his lady friends with the care with which I am sure he does, they will look very well in these furs; and I hope that some of his lady friends may note my words, and ask my hon. Friend about it. There is no new principle in this matter. Taxes have been reduced before —it may be some time ago.

Mr. Shinwell: Is this a reduction of tax?

Captain Waterhouse: Yes, definitely; it is a reduction from 100 per cent. to 16⅔ per cent.

Mr. Shinwell: My right hon. and gallant Friend is quite wrong. I see that he now has the assistance of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, so he is well fortified. We are dealing with utility articles. It is no use the Financial Secretary shaking his head disapprovingly. This is a utility garment, and he is proposing a tax on utility garments, for, I believe, the first time.

Captain Waterhouse: I do not accept that at all. We are dealing with fur coats, though we are going to call them utility fur coats. These fur coats have heretofore borne a tax of 100 per cent. on the wholesale price.

Mr. Shinwell: Not utility.

Captain Waterhouse: These fur coats made out of sheepskin, lambskin, dingo-skin, genet, rabbit, and all the rest of it, are now, owing to the kindness of my

right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary, going to bear a tax of only one-sixth that amount. We are very fortunate. That is the complete answer to that point. My hon. Friend stressed the utility question. He will probably remember the history of the utility concessions. In the first place, all clothes were subject to some Purchase Tax, at rates varying from 16i per cent. to 100 per cent. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade represented to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be to the general advantage to have certain garments, which were needed in the homes of the less well-to-do, offered in the shops at as low a price as possible, in order to keep down the cost of living and avoid the dangers of inflation, which we know so well. Therefore, he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to forgo his Purchase Tax on some of these garments. Sir Kingsley Wood, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, agreed, and that was done. The intention then was to cover garments which cost pence or shillings, and the inclusion of a coat costing something like £30 was never contemplated.

Major Procter: Is it not true that there never has been a utility fur coat until now?

Captain Waterhouse: That is perfectly true. Now we are making a utility fur-coat. As I was saying, it was desirable to reduce the price of these things, which were needed in the homes of the less well-to-do, as low as possible. Therefore, the Chancellor agreed to abolish altogether the tax on utility garments. But when one says, "Will you consider as a utility garment a thing which costs a good many more, pounds than some of the other utility garments cost pence?" it is not surprising that he should say that he is prepared to make a concession for the benefit of the consumer, and, perhaps most of all, for the benefit of the fur trade, but that he is not prepared to make a concession of more than five-Sixths of the tax.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it proposed to control the prices of these utility garments to prevent the retailers or the wholesalers increasing the price because of the Purchase Tax?

Captain Waterhouse: I can assure my hon. Friend that all utility garments are specified and controlled as to the manufacturing price, the margin for the wholesalers, and the margin for the reailers. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary reminds me that even in this regard we are not working quite without precedent, for a little time ago he did the same thing with no less important an item of clothing than pearl studs.

Mr. Charleton: Some time ago, Sir Charles Wilson, who was Member for Central Leeds and was interested in the production of furs from rabbit skins, said that there was not a lady Member in this House at that time who was wearing a fur-coat, however expensive, made of anything but rabbit skin. Does this mean that all rabbit-skin furs will become utility?

Captain Waterhouse: Definitely not. These are furs made from certain skins, according to certain specifications, and sold within a certain price range. Quite clearly, the quality of rabbits, like everything else varies. There are rabbits and rabbits, and, if you get a superior rabbit, you may have to pay £28 for it.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what other garments, worn either by women of men, and produced solely in the utility class and known as utility wear, marked with the label, "G.C."—Government Control—are carrying a 16⅔ per cent. tax? My second question is: Has the Minister himself seen the overcoats for men which have been made available in recent months? They are very excellent coats. Would my right hon. and gallant Friend look at this question, and compare the overcoat worn by a man, with a fur coat now to be made available for a woman; and will he tell us why a man should have the concession of having no tax on his utility overcoat while a woman, on her utility fur coat, should pay 16⅔per cent. tax? I think those two points are of some importance.

Captain Waterhouse: I think I can answer both these points. The answer to the first is, "None." There are no other utility garments which bear any tax at all. This is the first of the utility garments which will bear a tax, and the reason that it does bear a tax, in dis-

tinction to the ordinary man's overcoat, to which my hon. Friend referred, is the fact that this is a much more expensive coat. I do not carry all these prices in my mind, but I think the price of a man's utility overcoat is £8 or £10.

Mr. Walkden: The price of a utility overcoat is £5 12s. 6d.

Captain Waterhouse: Very well; that is capital. A utility coat is £5 12s. 6d. The prices of these utility fur coats range from £16 to £28. I do not think it is unreasonable that, when you get a coat at that sort of price, the buyer should be asked to make a contribution of some £2 or £3 to the General Exchequer at a time when money is needed as badly for fighting the war as it is to-day.

Major Procter: Can my right hon. Friend tell us why they are called "utility" coats when, in fact, they are luxury coats?

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Purchase Tax (Charges) (No. 1) Order, 1945, dated 14th February, 1945, made by the Treasury under Section 20 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, a copy of which Order was presented on 16th February, 1945, be approved.

PURCHASE TAX (ALTERATION OF RATES) (UTILITY FUR GARMENTS)

Resolved:
That the Purchase Tax (Alteration of Rates) (No. 1) Order, 1945, dated 14th February, 1945, made by the Treasury under Section 20 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, a copy of which Order was presented on 16th February, 1945, be approved. "—[Captain Waterhouse.]

KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS)

Power to the Select Committee to appoint a Sub-Committee to confer with a Sub-Committee of the Select Committee of the House of Lords appointed to consider of House of Lords Offices:

Such Sub-Committee to have power to send for persons, papers and records:

Quorum of such Sub-Committee to be Two.—[Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.]

To be communicated to the Lords.

BRITISH ARMY (DISCHARGE PROCEDURE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major A. S. L. Young.]

3.12 p.m.

Mr. Bellenģer: The House this week has been listening to many glowing tributes to our Army, and, indeed, the Secretary of State for War went out of his way to chide some hon. Members because he thought they had not done enough in that direction. To-day, I want to present a slightly different picture of how the Army itself, the War Office, deals with some of the men it has discharged from the Forces, about which it has spoken in such fine words. I ought to explain that all soldiers, when they are discharged from the Forces, are discharged under a procedure laid down in King's Regulations. King's Regulations have a large number of headings, under which soldiers can be discharged either in peacetime or in war-time, and the principal paragraph which deals with the manner in which they shall be discharged is Paragraph 390. There are many sub-headings to Paragraph 390 on the matter of discharge from the Army. The two principal sub-headings under which soldiers are discharged are sub-heading 16 and sub-heading 18 of Paragraph 390.
Sub-heading 16 is headed "Invaliding," and most soldiers who are found to be medically unfit for further service in the Army are discharged under subheading 16, when certain principles operate. One is, at any rate, now, that the soldier who is discharged medically unfit receives 56 days' pay and allowances and receives his post-war credit of 6d. a day, dating back to 1st January, 1942, immediately on discharge, or, rather, as soon as he receives a final account from the regimental paymaster.
The other sub-heading under which a certain number of soldiers are discharged is headed "For the benefit of the public service," and we have this interesting factor in war-time that there are, to-day, a considerable number of soldiers being discharged from the Army for the benefit of the public service, and not necessarily for their own benefit. The reason that many of these men are discharged in this way is because the Army has no further use for their services, and I believe that they used to be discharged under sub-

heading 18 (a), under the heading "Soldier's services being no longer required." A certain number of men in medical category C, who were not only of no use to the Army, but were in a bad state of health, were previously 'discharged under this sub-heading 18, but that system has now been rectified by the Army Council in conformity with an undertaking given to this House last October by the Secretary of State that, from a certain date—I think it was 12th October last year—men of medical category C would be discharged under sub-paragraph (16) which would entitle them to 56 days' pay and allowances and their post-war credit.
A little while ago a case was brought to my notice by my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Glanville), and I have his permission to refer to it. I do not know whether he will wish to speak to-day, but he has authorised me to quote this case which is connected with one of his constituents. It concerns a battery sergeant-major, aged 48, of the medical category B.X., the X referring to his age, and the medical category being B.1. This man has been discharged under a new sub-sub-paragraph of sub-paragraph (18) which the War Office have recently added. The Secretary of State for War told us recently that these were headed "F" and "G," and referred to men discharged because the Army had no employment suitable to their age and medical category. This man whose case I am quoting had 32 years' service in the Territorial Army. I ask those few hon. Members who are here to note that, in spite of all the words uttered in this House during this week about the wonderful service that the Territorial Army gave both in peace time and during the war, we have here one of them being discharged in this manner. The Army have no further use for his services, and he is being deprived of 56 days' pay and allowances for notice leave, and more than that, being deprived of the opportunity of receiving the deferred pay to which he is entitled, the post-war credit of 6d. a day from 1st January, 1942.
That action on the part of the Army Council is nothing less than mean. Whether the Army Council give those 56 days' pay and allowances to such men is a matter which, I believe, is now being discussed and perhaps my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary to


the War Office may have some information to give on that point to-day. The Secretary of State for War told the House on a previous occasion that the point was being considered. There is no reason why money which is due to the discharged soldier of the class I have quoted, should be withheld from him, merely because the Army authorities choose to throw him out under the paragraph which deprives him of the opportunity of receiving that postwar credit until some day after the war. In giving the illustration of this particular case, which, undoubtedly, is a hard case, and on which I am not basing my entire argument, the House will understand and perhaps sympathise with me when I say it is not the slightest use the Secretary of State for War coming down to this House and saying all the fine words he did about the Army on Tuesday last when he, or his officials, take steps like this, to let their old and trusted servants go with such bare recompense in regard to finance as I have just indicated.
I do not want to speak long on this issue, but what I urge on my hon. and learned Friend is this. It may not seem a matter of great importance, but it is a matter of all too frequent occurrence, because a considerable number of men are being discharged from the Army now, and have been discharged for some time past, because they are not quite "making the grade," either because they have got a bit too old, or because they have too long a service—and this man had 32 years' service with the Territorial Force—or because the physical standards of the Army require a higher measure of endurance. The Army are displacing men and will, as the war comes to an end, and as we come nearer to demobilisation, have less use for a very large number running, I believe, into tens of thousands of men who are being utilised in some capacity either as batmen, or on non-combatant duties.
I ask my hon. and learned Friend, Is the Army Council going to take advantage of these two new "F" and "G" sub-headings of this sub-paragraph to send men out of the Forces with, perhaps, 14 days' notice leave—that is all they get at the present moment —and to defer payment of their post-war credits until some date hence of which we know nothing? It may come after the German war, or it may come after the end of the Japanese war. The hon. Member for Central Newcastle-upon-

Tyne (Mr. Denville) says that they may even be dead when the time comes for them to draw their post-war credit. There is the qualification that beneficiaries, under their wills, will be entitled to their post-war credits. These men want that money as soon as they can possibly get it, to help them to settle down in civil life as quickly as possible. Should not Parliament do all they possibly can to encourage them to settle down as peaceful and, we hope, prosperous citizens, after they have given some period of their life in the service of their country? That is the case on behalf of an ever-increasing number discharged from the Army, and I ask my hon. and learned Friend not to dismiss this case with smooth words though, I am sure, we shall get these from him in larger measure than we are accustomed to from his political chief. Nevertheless, we want something more than smooth words this afternoon. Can we hope that these men will be able to draw their post-war credits and get their 56 days' leave pay and allowances and that the decision may not be deferred too long? We know that even if the War Office eventually decide in favour of what we are asking they will not be inclined to make this matter retrospective, and men are being discharged on the grounds I have indicated, every day.

3.24 p.m.

Colonel Burton: I have a very great deal of sympathy with much that has been said by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenģer). We have heard a great deal about the Army this week, and we have had almost as great a surfeit of it as the Boche is getting on the Western Front, but I cannot help feeling that the hon. Member loses, in a way, some sense of proportion in this matter. I have received very many hard cases, as must other hon. Members. I have in mind one, that is before the War Office, of a man who came home on leave. He was wounded and his wound turned septic on the way home and he was sent straight to bed at home. He sent his notice to Official Records, but only last week two "redcaps" came down and arrested him as a deserter, and now this morning we hear that the poor distracted mother, who can get no news of her son though she knows how ill he is, has received a demand from the authorities that she returns her allowance book owing to her son being an absentee.
We all have very hard cases, but the War Office are dealing with millions where we are dealing with individuals, and if we calculate the number of cases that go wrong and reduce them down to some decimal point, the fact is there are very few indeed. Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend said, these few may be multiplied before long by thousands, even tens of thousands, and when these fellows come home with no money in their pockets—heaven knows, soldiers do not accumulate a great amount of cash; I was in the Army over 40 years ago and I came out a poorer man than when I went in—I cannot help feeling that something should be done to hasten the payment of war credits. These fellows see others who have continued in work all the time, prosperous, and with decent homes, while they themselves find perhaps that they have nothing but a few sticks or a burnt-out site and no money. If the War Office would get a little more "move on," it would do a great deal of good.
On that I would ask that there should be a little more humanity displayed in some other War Office matters. The other day we received a notice to the effect that a man was missing. When I opened the envelope and pulled out a yellow slip, I thought it was an Income Tax demand. It is very unfortunate that this sort of thing is done. On the other hand, the relatives of a friend of mine in the New Zealand Forces who is missing were notified in a beautifully-written letter, written, one might almost say, as from one personal friend to another. If they can do that in the New Zealand Forces, we can do it in ours. There are hundreds of thousands of women in this country who would be only too glad to write these letters for the War Office, and the result would be a feeling that there was a certain amount of sympathy over the missing boys. I do ask that something should be done in that regard. I appealed to the Financial Secretary once before and he told me that he was very sorry but, with the hundreds of thousands of things they had to deal with, nothing more could be done. However, I am sure we have sufficient people in this country, who are gradually going out of other work, who would be only too glad to do this work voluntarily and they would do it very well.
In the meantime, I would not like to say anything which would detract from the wonderful work which the War Office has done. Neither would I like to say anything that would detract from the wonderful work our own fellows have done. Yesterday afternoon the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) claimed the right to speak because he was on Army manoeuvres in 1906. I claim the right to speak because I was on active service in 1900.

3.28 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: I think the House will feel considerable sympathy with the point dealt with, by the previous speaker on the writing of letters in the case of bereavement. However, I do not wish to follow him on that point, but to come back to the matter raised by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenģer). I was not aware that he was raising it to-day; I wish I had been, because I should have armed myself with some material in the shape of a number of cases supporting his argument. It is very unfortunate, the way this matter is being dealt with at the moment, and I urge on the Financial Secretary the seriousness of it. It is really very unjust. Officers and men are now being put out of the Army and are not getting what they would receive if they were kept in the Army for a little longer., That is what it comes to. If they were demobilised—once the demobilisation scheme comes into operation—they would get their 56 days and their post-war credit and would receive it immediately. What is happening now is that officers and men are being sent out and because they are, as it were, a little ahead of the demobilisation scheme, they are being deprived of the full benefits which they would otherwise get.
Only yesterday a case of this very nature was brought to my notice. A constituent of mine attended here to ask me whether it was right that he, an officer of many years' distinguished service, should now be relegated to unemployment and told that he would receive only 42 days' pay. He said he thought he was entitled to 56 days' pay. I spoke unofficially with those in the War Office who know about these matters and I confirmed that, indeed, the regulations only entitle him to 42 days. I asked what was the justification for that, and apparently


the only basis upon which there was an attempt to justify this policy was that these people were "beating the pistol"; that is to say, they were getting into civilian life a little ahead of those who would be demobilised. That struck me as a farcical attempt to justify this procedure. That officer did not want to leave the Army, but his services were no longer of any use as his particular appointment had come to an end. What, in fact, is happening is that the Army is now getting rid of its surplus officers at a, cheaper price than if it kept them for another month or so.
I think we have seen a little too much of this rather cheese-paring attitude towards the pay of officers and men in the Army. One meets many instances of it in different forms. I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Sudbury (Colonel Burton) that when in total these cases involve perhaps a large sum of money, but, by comparison with our total expenditure, it would cost very little to abandon that cheese-paring attitude and to treat these men with a little more generosity. We find cases of a wounded officer or soldier who is invalided out and is removed from a military hospital to a civilian hospital when he becomes a civilian, although he is still suffering from the effects of his wounds. We find cases of officers and men invalided out who claim allowances and pay to which they say they were entitled but are told that there is some pettifogging regulation standing in the way. Although quite negligible sums are involved, they are important to the individual, but they are negligible in relation to the total expenditure. I do ask that these cases should be approached with a little more humanity and with a little less strict regard to the written regulations.
It is for that reason that I want particularly to support the case raised by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw. It seems to me there would be no difficulty now in fixing a day, in saying that every officer and man who leaves the Forces, say, after 1st February of this year, or something of that kind, shall come within the demobilisation scheme. That would abolish the anomaly referred to and, I think, would not prove beyond the financial capacity of this country.

3.34 p.m.

Mr. Edgar Granville: This has been something of an Army week for the War Office. We have had several Debates, some of them big and others small, and I intervene to support the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basset-law (Mr. Bellenģer) in order to show to the War Office and to the Financial Secretary that there are, I am sure, large numbers of hon. Members who are receiving evidence of anomalies of this kind. Something ought to be done in the matter referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brighton (Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe) in order to alleviate a good deal of the distress of those who really have made a considerable contribution to the success of the Armed Forces of this country. Many of us have perhaps played some part in stimulating recruiting for the Territorial Army, particularly at the beginning of the war. I know I did so in my county, and we feel that we have a certain responsibility with regard to the method by which these men are being demobilised. One tries to envisage the enormous responsibility which the War Office have at the present time, and to picture the kind of machinery which they will have to create in order to deal with this extensive problem of demobilisation. I suggest to the House that what is required is a committee, in the War Office, to investigate the whole question of demobilisation, and certainly to look into the organisation which exists at the present time to deal with this matter. The Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary who sits in another place, and the Financial Secretary, have a tremendous responsibility at the moment for the enormous force of men in the British Army and one can see their difficulties in running that Army during the war and, at the same time, trying to prepare adequate machinery which will prevent anomalies on demobilisation.
Members are receiving an increasing number of complaints from their constituents, and from serving men who are being subject to all kinds of unfortunate treatment by the War Office. Recently, I drew the attention of the Secretary of State for War to the case of a soldier whose wife's allowance had been stopped simply because he had been posted as being illegally absent. There is a large number of these cases, and I cannot think how they occur. I want the Financial Secretary to realise the feeling of wives


and parents on being told that a husband or son is a deserter when they know all the time that he has just come back from the front, wounded, or when they have received a letter saying that he is taking part in operations. I could understand cases of mistaken identity arising now and again, but they ought not to arise on such a scale. I know that the Financial Secretary has a good heart, a good legal mind and a mind for organisation, and I want him to spare some of his time to look through this vast organisation in order to try to find the blind spots and what is causing them.
I had another case recently of a young man who was sent from hospital, having been severely injured in battle training by one of our own "fireworks," as they are called. He was found at 4.30 one winter's morning, nearly frozen to death, in a ditch, four or five miles from his home. He had been sent on leave with no proper escort or anybody to take care of him, his parents had not been told that he had been moved from one hospital to another or, finally, that he was being sent on leave. I ask the Financial Secretary to remember that if it is hoped to make the Territorial Army attractive after the war, if it is hoped to encourage young men to take an interest in, and join, that Army after the war, these anomalies and hardships, which have such a great influence in villages and towns, must be removed. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will not merely tell us that the matter will be looked at, and that it will be left there. This question of the demobilisation of the old Territorials is of growing seriousness and importance, and I hope we shall be told that the War Office will put it on all fours with the demobilisation scheme which the Financial Secretary announced in the House only this week.

3.40 P.m.

Sir Robert Tasker: I want to make a suggestion to the Financial Secretary. At the present moment there is a difference between dealing with a casualty in the Army and a civilian. The civilian gets his post-war credit and the soldier gets what is termed "entitlement." If that could be notified to him in writing that it would take the place of post-war credit it would give him much satisfaction. In regard to errors

in the War Office, I think we must recognise that some of them are inevitable when a Department is dealing with the affairs of millions of men. I was a victim of an error in the last war. I was at home when a telegram was received saying that it was regretted that I had been killed in action. I stuck that telegram in my pocket. It concerned an officer of the same name as myself, with the same initials, and of the same rank, and one could quite understand how the mistake had arisen. I would like to mention in passing that in a certain club in London I was referred to, for a time, as "the ghost." My name was carved on a memorial to the fallen, but it referred to another man, and not to me.
I also would like to plead for the humanising element to be brought in when dealing with a man who becomes a casualty. I appreciate the difficulty, and recognise that much of the trouble is due to the man who is a "scrounger," or a "scrimshanker," who is trying to get something for nothing. Cases are sometimes viewed in that light. The War Office say: "We have to be very particular to see that a man does not get away with something to which he is not entitled." I believe that the majority of people would say that if there was an error it should be made on the right side, in other words, to the advantage of the casualty. I believe that sympathetic treatment can be meted out. King's Regulations cannot be altered, but an Army Council Instruction could be issued to meet the difficulties. There need be no hesitation, because so many A.C.Is. are issued that in a short time they form a pile a yard high. However, I hope the Financial Secretary will tell us that something will be done to alleviate any unnecessary distress and suffering which is being caused to-day.

3.44 P.m.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenģer) in his plea that we should get a definite statement from the War Office about those whom the Army are now discarding for various reasons. Without casting any imputations on the morale of the British Army I must say that I have found, in discussions with serving men, that there is a growing discontent among officers, even of senior rank, at the indefiniteness of the


War Office as to what is to happen to them in the future. I have in mind the case of a friend of mine who is a major, and who has 'served for 14 years. He was a regular soldier, and was recalled two days before war broke out. This man has resigned, and he is being discharged within the next few days suffering from high blood pressure. He has a very grave dent in his forehead, and I do not know whether that has been caused by being wounded in fighting, but he undoubtedly has served very well and is expecting his discharge. This man has no money of his own. He has been a soldier, has lived as a soldier and spent as a soldier. He has a gratuity to come, and I want to know what is going to happen when he is discharged. He has an opportunity of being set up in business, as his mother can cover his note for the amount required. His gratuity is, I think, some-think like £1,200. I would suggest that in view of his position, and in all the circumstances, there should be some method whereby this man and officers and men in a similar position, should, on their discharge with an exemplary character, be permitted to draw if not all, at least a considerable amount of the gratuity as soon as they are discharged, instead of having to wait until some hypothetical, period at the end of the war. I should be obliged if the right hon. Gentleman could give me some information on that point.

3.47 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I may say at once, with regard to the specific question that has just been addressed to me, that I certainly cannot give the information desired this afternoon. It does seem to me, however, that in special circumstances like that, there is a good deal to be said for giving sympathetic consideration to the possibility of doing something on the lines the hon. Member suggests. On the other hand, we have a large number of officers, apart from other ranks, who, I have no doubt, will feel that we should see that too many people are not given a start, while they are continuing to render service. If my hon. Friend will be content for the present with what is perhaps a rather unsatisfactory reply from his point of view, I would certainly like to discuss the matter with the responsible officers in the Department.

Mr. Davidson: I take it that if I bring the case to the notice of my hon. and

learned Friend, it will receive consideration. There is one other point I would like answered and that is whether there is, anything in the King's Regulations which would debar the War Office from giving such a case sympathetic consideration.

Mr. Henderson: I would not like to say there was anything in King's Regulations, but on the other hand it is obvious that when the War Office are dealing with several millions of men, they must work according to some rules and regulations, whether you call it "red tape" or not. Otherwise there would be, most likely, chaos and disorder.
As regards the reference of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenģer) to various anomalies that have arisen, and that are being brought to his notice by letters and so on, I quite agree, particularly after my three years' experience in the War Office, that anomalies obviously have arisen. Yet I think that my hon. Friend knows only too well and will admit it from his own knowledge, that even though the War Office have done their best to remove anomalies during the past three or four years, we find that as often as we remove one anomaly, another follows. Perhaps before I deal with the main argument I might refer to the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Sudbury (Colonel Burton). He rather chided the War Office and made comparisons with the position in regard to a New Zealand soldier, citing the case of a British soldier whose relatives, when the man was reported missing, received a slip of paper. May I point out to him—though I am sure he knows it as well as I do—that men are very often reported missing but later on turn out to be prisoners of war? It is only when they are definitely known to have been killed in action, that a letter is sent to the relatives. A letter is not sent when a man is merely declared missing.

Colonel Burton: The New Zealand man to whom I referred was later discovered to be a prisoner of war.

Mr. Henderson: There is no fixed principle on the matter. There is no reason why another form of document should not be sent in the case of a man who is missing. What I want to make quite clear, should there be any misapprehension, is that where a man is reported as having been killed in action, then his relatives do not merely receive a slip of paper but a letter of sympathy from and


on behalf of the Army Council, to which I do not think any exception can be taken.
My hon. Friend in raising this question of the release of men other than those in C or E category made a statement which I think is not correct. He stated that a considerable number of men were being discharged on other than medical grounds, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brighton (Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe) associated himself with that statement—he is unfortunately not now in the House —and the suggestion appeared to be that the War Office was getting rid of many old soldiers in order to save money. That is a fantastic statement and quite untrue, and I am sorry that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brighton should have thought fit to make it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basset-law perhaps would allow me to put before the House the background of the problem to which he has drawn attention. As he knows, before 12th October, 1944, when the revised procedure to which he has referred came into operation, the only non-Regular soldiers discharged under King's Regulation, paragraph 390 (xvi), on the ground of ceasing to fulfil Army physical requirements, were those who had been placed in medical category E by a medical board. All non-Regular soldiers, of whatever medical category, for whom no suitable employment in any capacity could be found in the Army were discharged under paragraph 390 (xviii) (a) on the ground that their services were no longer required for the purpose for which they enlisted. I am advised, without being too specific in the figures which apply to these categories, for obvious reasons, that of the several hundreds of thousands of men who have been discharged from the Army since the beginning of the war, far and away the great majority are men who were in category E.
So that the problem to which my hon. Friend has addressed himself concerns only a relatively small number of men. It is not a question of the War Office seeking to get rid of the old soldier in order to save money, and of vast numbers of them being put out. In consequence of objections to the use of subparagraph (xviii) (a) the whole question was reviewed and the present procedure was introduced from 12th October, 1944. Under the revised procedure all soldiers,

Regular and non-Regular, in medical category C, for whom no suitable employment can be found, are discharged under sub-paragraph (xviii) on the ground of ceasing to fulfil Army physical requirements. It is quite true that these men receive all the benefits attached to a discharge on medical grounds, that is, they receive their 56 days' paid leave and the immediate payment of post-war gratuities. To this extent, I think my hon. Friend will agree, this alteration in procedure implements the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 24th October in reply to a Question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Finchley (Captain Crowder). Retrospective action does not apply in these cases except as regards post-war credits.
It has been decided, in addition, that Regular soldiers who could not be found suitable employment and whose medical category was lower than that prescribed for re-engagement in their arm of the Service, would be similarly discharged. That covers the case of, for example, a Regular soldier of the Royal Armoured Corps, which branch of the Service requires him to be A.1. If he is subsequently to be found A.3 or B.1, he is discharged and is given this advantage of being placed in the same category as if he were discharged as medical category E. That is an advantage which is restricted to Regular soldiers. There remains the category to which my hon. Friend referred, those non-Regular soldiers for whom no suitable employment could be found, but whose medical category was higher than C. That would cover the case mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Glanville). These men felt they were under a stigma in being sent out of the Service under the wording, "his service being no longer required," and my right hon. Friend and I have received, in the last three years, a large number of letters from Members of Parliament drawing attention to their grievance. They regard it as a stigma and strong pressure has been brought to bear upon the War Office to alter it.
In consequence, we decided that there should be two new headings added to King's Regulations. The first one, (xviii) (f), to which my right hon. Friend referred in replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw a few days ago,


applies to warrant officers and non-commissioned officers who are now discharged on this basis—
there being no Army employment in his rank suitable to his age and medical category.
Other ranks come under sub-paragraph (xviii) (g), and they are certified as
discharged on the grounds of there being no Army employment suitable to his age and medical category.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: I take it that under none of those headings is the War Office involved in any further financial expenditure?

Mr. Henderson: I am just coming to the financial aspect. No undertaking was ever given, as regard soldiers in medical categories higher than C, that is those in A and B, who come out under these two sub-paragraphs. It is true to say that these men are being treated in exactly the same way as they would have been before the new procedure came into operation, except for the case of discharge, which was amended, in my submission, solely in the interests of the men affected.

Colonel Burton: Will men who were discharged before the change was made be entitled to have their discharge certificates endorsed accordingly?

Mr. Henderson: I think that has been provided for. These men do not receive immediate payment of post-war credits, not the 56 days' leave on discharge. They receive 14 days' paid leave as before. My hon. Friend and other hon. Members pressed me to b agree to the payment of the post-war credits to these caegories of men in the same way as they are paid on discharge to men discharged on medical grounds, the category C men.

It being Four o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adourn."—[Mr. Cary.]

Mr. Henderson: I may not have satisfied the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, but I will certainly undertake to look into this suggestion again and examine whether it is possible to bring these categories of men into line with category C men, as regards post-war credits. I cannot put it any higher than that, but I can undertake to look into the question myself and consult the military and other authorities at the War Office in order to ascertain whether or not it would be possible to do so. As regards the difference in the amount of paid leave, I am afraid my hon. Friend has already told the House the exact position. The possibilities of increasing paid leave to a greater number of days than the 14 now payable to these categories is at present under active consideration. I hope that it wi11 not be very long before it will be possible for some statement to be made as to the extent to which, if any, we are going to be able to make an improvement.

Mr. Bellenģer: I would like to thank the Minister for what he has said. I am glad he has given that sympathetic reply that both points that I have put to him are under consideration. I hope that he will not delay his decision too long. I know it has to be taken in conjunction with the other two Service Departments, but time is the essence of the contract for these men who are discharged, and unless the Minister makes the payment retrospective he will be penalising them by delaying his decision.

Mr. Henderson: My hon. Friend appreciates that it is not necessarily a question of delay, in view of the fact that other Departments are concerned. I can assure him that the War Office regard this as a live issue and that we are doing all we can to bring about a quick decision.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Four Minutes after Four o'Clock, till Tuesday next, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.